Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Ape-Men? 3
Forty years after he discovered Java “man, Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (i).
Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (j). Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (k).
i. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution—a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.
Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java “man to Java “gibbon. Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.
“Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude. Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus, Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.
“Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes. Ibid., p. 5.
“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human. W. R. Thompson, p. 17.
W. R. Thompson, in his “Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java “man at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293–294.] Dubois’ claims of finding “the missing link would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.
C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.
Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.
Hitching, pp. 208–209.
Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139–142.
j. Ibid., pp.108–138.
Bowden, pp.90–137.
Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p.145.
k. “ puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon. Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, as quoted in “Homo Erectus Never Existed? Geotimes, October 1992, p.11.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515721 wrote:
Ape-Men? 3
Forty years after he discovered Java “man, Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (i).
Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (j). Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (k).
i. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution—a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.
Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java “man to Java “gibbon. Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.
“Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude. Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus, Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.
“Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes. Ibid., p. 5.
“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human. W. R. Thompson, p. 17.
W. R. Thompson, in his “Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java “man at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293–294.] Dubois’ claims of finding “the missing link would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.
C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.
Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.
Hitching, pp. 208–209.
Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139–142.
j. Ibid., pp.108–138.
Bowden, pp.90–137.
Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p.145.
k. “ puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon. Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, as quoted in “Homo Erectus Never Existed? Geotimes, October 1992, p.11.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
And there you have the "magic" of Science. Bad science generally gets tested until it is exposed. Not the same with Religion.
With religion, someone would have started a new Cult to worship the Java Man.
Ape-Men? 3
Forty years after he discovered Java “man, Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (i).
Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (j). Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (k).
i. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution—a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.
Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java “man to Java “gibbon. Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.
“Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude. Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus, Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.
“Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes. Ibid., p. 5.
“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human. W. R. Thompson, p. 17.
W. R. Thompson, in his “Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java “man at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293–294.] Dubois’ claims of finding “the missing link would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.
C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.
Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.
Hitching, pp. 208–209.
Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139–142.
j. Ibid., pp.108–138.
Bowden, pp.90–137.
Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p.145.
k. “ puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon. Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, as quoted in “Homo Erectus Never Existed? Geotimes, October 1992, p.11.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
And there you have the "magic" of Science. Bad science generally gets tested until it is exposed. Not the same with Religion.
With religion, someone would have started a new Cult to worship the Java Man.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515723 wrote: And there you have the "magic" of Science. Bad science generally gets tested until it is exposed. Not the same with Religion.
With religion, someone would have started a new Cult to worship the Java Man.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Our Great Ancestors Were. . . Sponges?
Geochemists and paleontologists are on the lookout for “molecular fossils, biochemicals that were resistant to breakdown even during rock-forming processes.1 These have been discovered now in the very lowest layers of sedimentary rock, far below the Cambrian.2 Certain chemicals, like some steroids made by sea sponges, indicate that sponges were present in the earliest times—if these rock layers indeed represent bygone eras.
In response to this news, the Daily Mail presented a short article titled, “Meet the ancestors: Earliest evidence of life suggests humans descended from sponges 635 million years ago.3 But nothing about the find suggested any evolutionary link between sponges and humans.
The new research instead showed that sponges probably existed when these rocks were formed. Rather than requiring an evolutionary explanation, this evidence falls well within the interpretive realm of creation flood models. The strongest interpretation for the origin of rock layers is that they formed by catastrophic deposition during Noah’s Flood. In this context, the lowest layers represent the first areas to have been deluged.4 Since these rocks contain evidence of shallow sea creatures, it could be that shallow seas were the first to be washed away. Consistent with this hypothesis, Nature reported that this earliest animal life “first achieved ecological prominence in shallow marine waters.2 Thus, the fossil distribution does not represent fauna of a bygone era, but fauna of a bygone biome.
Sponges are multicellular sea creatures, but the cells are held together so loosely that they can re-gather after having been blended apart.5 Evolutionary scientists have presumed that since these organisms are so simple in structure, the first multi-cellular creatures to have evolved must have been very similar. Thus, they hypothesize a scenario whereby single-celled creatures banded together to form the “ancestor of all animals, known as the urmetazoan.6
However, “with the urmetazoan dead for more than half a billion years, studying it is something of a challenge. No fossils have been found, so there are no physical clues to its appearance.6 If these newly-discovered chemical fossils came from sponges and not urmetazoans—and observation demonstrates that sponges can make these sterols—then the “urmetazoan remains in the realm of speculation, along with the idea that sponges somehow became people.
Our Great Ancestors Were. . . Sponges? | The Institute for Creation Research
With religion, someone would have started a new Cult to worship the Java Man.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Our Great Ancestors Were. . . Sponges?
Geochemists and paleontologists are on the lookout for “molecular fossils, biochemicals that were resistant to breakdown even during rock-forming processes.1 These have been discovered now in the very lowest layers of sedimentary rock, far below the Cambrian.2 Certain chemicals, like some steroids made by sea sponges, indicate that sponges were present in the earliest times—if these rock layers indeed represent bygone eras.
In response to this news, the Daily Mail presented a short article titled, “Meet the ancestors: Earliest evidence of life suggests humans descended from sponges 635 million years ago.3 But nothing about the find suggested any evolutionary link between sponges and humans.
The new research instead showed that sponges probably existed when these rocks were formed. Rather than requiring an evolutionary explanation, this evidence falls well within the interpretive realm of creation flood models. The strongest interpretation for the origin of rock layers is that they formed by catastrophic deposition during Noah’s Flood. In this context, the lowest layers represent the first areas to have been deluged.4 Since these rocks contain evidence of shallow sea creatures, it could be that shallow seas were the first to be washed away. Consistent with this hypothesis, Nature reported that this earliest animal life “first achieved ecological prominence in shallow marine waters.2 Thus, the fossil distribution does not represent fauna of a bygone era, but fauna of a bygone biome.
Sponges are multicellular sea creatures, but the cells are held together so loosely that they can re-gather after having been blended apart.5 Evolutionary scientists have presumed that since these organisms are so simple in structure, the first multi-cellular creatures to have evolved must have been very similar. Thus, they hypothesize a scenario whereby single-celled creatures banded together to form the “ancestor of all animals, known as the urmetazoan.6
However, “with the urmetazoan dead for more than half a billion years, studying it is something of a challenge. No fossils have been found, so there are no physical clues to its appearance.6 If these newly-discovered chemical fossils came from sponges and not urmetazoans—and observation demonstrates that sponges can make these sterols—then the “urmetazoan remains in the realm of speculation, along with the idea that sponges somehow became people.
Our Great Ancestors Were. . . Sponges? | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. LOL As a Christian I have no problem with the fact of evolution.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1515786 wrote: Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. LOL As a Christian I have no problem with the fact of evolution.
That's strange. Evolution teaches that everything came about without God's help. That everything created itself. Christianity teaches God created everything and everyone. The two are contradictory and cannot both be right. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Elephant Secrets under Middle East Sands
Yale anthropology professor Andrew Hill and graduate student Faysal Bibi are studying elephant footprints and other fossils near oil-rich Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. In this formerly lush and verdant area, the scientists’ fascinating finds fit well with the biblical model.
Bibi told Gulf News about the intriguing fossils: “It is like walking in a crazy zoo or a dream zoo and saying, ‘That animal resembles an elephant but it is much smaller or much larger or it has four tusks.’1 The desert fossils are thought to be 6 to 8 million years old according to the standard evolutionary timeline, but “the interesting thing is these animals are recognisable versions and ancestors of the animals we know today. After all these supposed millions of years, why have today’s versions of these creatures not evolved beyond the boundaries of their basic recognizable forms?
Creation scientists maintain that distinct “kinds were created according to Genesis, each with inherent variability as well as an inherent and inviolable core identity. Thus, it is not a surprise to them that scientists can recognize these “ancestor fossils in relation to modern animals.
Evolutionary scientists assign millions of years to their fossil finds based on their assumptions that the rock strata in which they are found took unfathomable ages to form. Creation scientists are formulating diagnostic procedures to interpret when each rock layer was formed within a biblically consistent, young world timeframe.2 In the young-earth model, the vast majority of earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited during the year-long global Flood of Noah, but strata typically interpreted as being Quaternary and Tertiary were very likely post-Flood deposits.3 Since the Abu Dhabi fossils are in Miocene rock (of the Tertiary Era), they are post-Flood remains.
If the Abu Dhabi elephants lived relatively soon after the Flood, however, why do they show such differences from others of their kind? Darwinian evolution predicts that long time spans would be necessary to generate variety in “species, but recent studies show that radical genetic changes can occur rapidly under the right conditions.4 Thus, it is not surprising that these strange varieties of elephants existed so soon, perhaps on the order of hundreds of years, after the ~2300 BC Flood.5
No fossilized transitional forms have been found in Abu Dhabi or elsewhere, which is contrary to what the broad picture of macroevolution would predict. Much as dog breeds show wide varieties yet are distinctly dogs, and like the ancient remains of Syrian camels that are outsized yet are nonetheless undeniably camels,6 these elephant fossils are definitely elephants and not just another branch on the evolutionary tree.
Elephant Secrets under Middle East Sands | The Institute for Creation Research
That's strange. Evolution teaches that everything came about without God's help. That everything created itself. Christianity teaches God created everything and everyone. The two are contradictory and cannot both be right. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Elephant Secrets under Middle East Sands
Yale anthropology professor Andrew Hill and graduate student Faysal Bibi are studying elephant footprints and other fossils near oil-rich Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. In this formerly lush and verdant area, the scientists’ fascinating finds fit well with the biblical model.
Bibi told Gulf News about the intriguing fossils: “It is like walking in a crazy zoo or a dream zoo and saying, ‘That animal resembles an elephant but it is much smaller or much larger or it has four tusks.’1 The desert fossils are thought to be 6 to 8 million years old according to the standard evolutionary timeline, but “the interesting thing is these animals are recognisable versions and ancestors of the animals we know today. After all these supposed millions of years, why have today’s versions of these creatures not evolved beyond the boundaries of their basic recognizable forms?
Creation scientists maintain that distinct “kinds were created according to Genesis, each with inherent variability as well as an inherent and inviolable core identity. Thus, it is not a surprise to them that scientists can recognize these “ancestor fossils in relation to modern animals.
Evolutionary scientists assign millions of years to their fossil finds based on their assumptions that the rock strata in which they are found took unfathomable ages to form. Creation scientists are formulating diagnostic procedures to interpret when each rock layer was formed within a biblically consistent, young world timeframe.2 In the young-earth model, the vast majority of earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited during the year-long global Flood of Noah, but strata typically interpreted as being Quaternary and Tertiary were very likely post-Flood deposits.3 Since the Abu Dhabi fossils are in Miocene rock (of the Tertiary Era), they are post-Flood remains.
If the Abu Dhabi elephants lived relatively soon after the Flood, however, why do they show such differences from others of their kind? Darwinian evolution predicts that long time spans would be necessary to generate variety in “species, but recent studies show that radical genetic changes can occur rapidly under the right conditions.4 Thus, it is not surprising that these strange varieties of elephants existed so soon, perhaps on the order of hundreds of years, after the ~2300 BC Flood.5
No fossilized transitional forms have been found in Abu Dhabi or elsewhere, which is contrary to what the broad picture of macroevolution would predict. Much as dog breeds show wide varieties yet are distinctly dogs, and like the ancient remains of Syrian camels that are outsized yet are nonetheless undeniably camels,6 these elephant fossils are definitely elephants and not just another branch on the evolutionary tree.
Elephant Secrets under Middle East Sands | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Same old same old.
Science Disproves Evolution
Well, thanks. I got my laugh for the day.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1515804 wrote: Same old same old.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism
The unobserved process of evolution and its bizarre history has been thoroughly entrenched in the minds of millions. For decades there were facets of this theory that one was never to question, but irritating scientific discoveries continue to unravel the Darwinian garment.
For instance, decades ago it was routinely taught that vertebrates arose long after the Cambrian period. Evolutionists maintained that the Cambrian (beginning "542 million years ago") was when "simple" life was first getting established. It would take many millions of years to produce the first animals with backbones -- the fish. In fact, two evolutionists stated in a well-known text, "Fish arose during the Ordovician |beginning '488 mya'|. . . ."1 But in 1999 fossil fish were found in lower Cambrian sediments in south China.2
Several years back, this writer attended the International Conference on Dinosaur/Bird Evolution. One afternoon, a number of us took a field trip led by a recognized "expert." He asked us if the field in which we were standing could have been a dinosaur-age environment. Several said no, because there was grass present. Evolutionists maintain that grasses were not present during the age of dinosaurs --
In my review |i.e., Eschberger, ed.| of Disney's new movie "Dinosaur," I mentioned that one of the few scientific inacurracies |sic| that I found in the movie was the presence of grasses in the dinosaur nesting grounds.3
However, in a 2005 report we read, "Plant-eating dinosaurs munched on grass, say scientists who had thought the plants emerged after the beasts died off."4
Students were taught that the only mammals during the "age of dinosaurs" were small, and barely able to stay alive among the terrible thunder lizards. Evolution theory said that the mammals were nothing more than "shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night." That radically changed with the recent discovery of large, dinosaur-hunting mammals!5
One of the more spectacular discoveries that has done much to dispel the myth of dinosaurs living many millions of years ago is the unearthing of soft dinosaur tissue (see Acts & Facts Origins Column).6 How could dinosaur tissue remain soft for 70 million years?
These discoveries, while devastating Darwinism, clearly support the creation model, with all things created within one week, not long ago.
Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism | The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism
The unobserved process of evolution and its bizarre history has been thoroughly entrenched in the minds of millions. For decades there were facets of this theory that one was never to question, but irritating scientific discoveries continue to unravel the Darwinian garment.
For instance, decades ago it was routinely taught that vertebrates arose long after the Cambrian period. Evolutionists maintained that the Cambrian (beginning "542 million years ago") was when "simple" life was first getting established. It would take many millions of years to produce the first animals with backbones -- the fish. In fact, two evolutionists stated in a well-known text, "Fish arose during the Ordovician |beginning '488 mya'|. . . ."1 But in 1999 fossil fish were found in lower Cambrian sediments in south China.2
Several years back, this writer attended the International Conference on Dinosaur/Bird Evolution. One afternoon, a number of us took a field trip led by a recognized "expert." He asked us if the field in which we were standing could have been a dinosaur-age environment. Several said no, because there was grass present. Evolutionists maintain that grasses were not present during the age of dinosaurs --
In my review |i.e., Eschberger, ed.| of Disney's new movie "Dinosaur," I mentioned that one of the few scientific inacurracies |sic| that I found in the movie was the presence of grasses in the dinosaur nesting grounds.3
However, in a 2005 report we read, "Plant-eating dinosaurs munched on grass, say scientists who had thought the plants emerged after the beasts died off."4
Students were taught that the only mammals during the "age of dinosaurs" were small, and barely able to stay alive among the terrible thunder lizards. Evolution theory said that the mammals were nothing more than "shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night." That radically changed with the recent discovery of large, dinosaur-hunting mammals!5
One of the more spectacular discoveries that has done much to dispel the myth of dinosaurs living many millions of years ago is the unearthing of soft dinosaur tissue (see Acts & Facts Origins Column).6 How could dinosaur tissue remain soft for 70 million years?
These discoveries, while devastating Darwinism, clearly support the creation model, with all things created within one week, not long ago.
Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515805 wrote: Well, thanks. I got my laugh for the day.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Amber: A Window to the Recent Past
Beautiful, golden fossilized amber begins as resin. Exuded as a sticky liquid from bark or wood, it polymerizes into solid amber. It slowly degrades when left in the open and therefore must be rather quickly buried in dense sediments. There are about twenty amber deposits, the most prominent locations are in the Baltic and Dominican Republic.
Many thousands of amber pieces contain fossils. A variety of animals are preserved in those golden tombs, including insects, crustaceans, tadpoles, lizards, annelids, snails, and spiders. In 1997, a piece of Dominican amber was appraised at $50,000 because it contained a frog. Even hair of mammals has been found. Such preservation gives us an idea of the pre-Flood ecosystem thousands of years ago.
The beautiful and aromatic blue amber of the Dominican Republic is the most rewarding of the ambers for aesthetic and scientific reasons, and holds the record when it comes to fossil content. Not only does this amber contain ten times more insects than Baltic amber, it also is 90% more transparent. Some of the fossilized creatures are extinct, but this is hardly evidence for vertical evolution.
There have even been discoveries of preserved animal and plant DNA, "Amber has preserved ancient life to such infinitesimal detail that it even captures fragments of DNA of the organisms entrapped in it."1 The discovery of DNA segments is not surprising for the creationist. However, it stupefies the Darwinist, because evolutionists maintain that amber is many millions of years old.
The oldest known amber containing insects is — according to evolutionary dating — 146 million years old. But what is found are animal forms that remain unchanged. Secular biologists are constantly amazed that creatures displayed in such a clear sarcophagus can be identified down to genus or even species. For example, small oak tree flowers have been found dated at "90 million years old," but they are still oak. The same is true for the oldest feather (100% feather — not a transition from a scale), the oldest mushroom, mosquito, biting black fly, and fig wasp. All that is seen in these organisms is no change ("stasis") or the possibility of extinction. This in no way supports the case for macroevolution, but is certainly what creationists expect.
To conclude, just as the mineralized fossils found in sedimentary rock units worldwide fail to support macroevolution, the same holds true for animals and plants found in "ancient" amber. Creation scientists aren't particularly surprised by the plants, animals, and DNA found in amber considering the youth of this planet. Furthermore, creationists have been requesting these creatures in amber should be subjected to Carbon 14 dating. A similar request is made to date the "70 million year old" soft dinosaur tissue recently discovered in eastern Montana (see Origins Issues "The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue").2 But secular scientists are reticent. Why? The search for truth should actively go where the physical evidence leads.
Amber: A Window to the Recent Past | The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Amber: A Window to the Recent Past
Beautiful, golden fossilized amber begins as resin. Exuded as a sticky liquid from bark or wood, it polymerizes into solid amber. It slowly degrades when left in the open and therefore must be rather quickly buried in dense sediments. There are about twenty amber deposits, the most prominent locations are in the Baltic and Dominican Republic.
Many thousands of amber pieces contain fossils. A variety of animals are preserved in those golden tombs, including insects, crustaceans, tadpoles, lizards, annelids, snails, and spiders. In 1997, a piece of Dominican amber was appraised at $50,000 because it contained a frog. Even hair of mammals has been found. Such preservation gives us an idea of the pre-Flood ecosystem thousands of years ago.
The beautiful and aromatic blue amber of the Dominican Republic is the most rewarding of the ambers for aesthetic and scientific reasons, and holds the record when it comes to fossil content. Not only does this amber contain ten times more insects than Baltic amber, it also is 90% more transparent. Some of the fossilized creatures are extinct, but this is hardly evidence for vertical evolution.
There have even been discoveries of preserved animal and plant DNA, "Amber has preserved ancient life to such infinitesimal detail that it even captures fragments of DNA of the organisms entrapped in it."1 The discovery of DNA segments is not surprising for the creationist. However, it stupefies the Darwinist, because evolutionists maintain that amber is many millions of years old.
The oldest known amber containing insects is — according to evolutionary dating — 146 million years old. But what is found are animal forms that remain unchanged. Secular biologists are constantly amazed that creatures displayed in such a clear sarcophagus can be identified down to genus or even species. For example, small oak tree flowers have been found dated at "90 million years old," but they are still oak. The same is true for the oldest feather (100% feather — not a transition from a scale), the oldest mushroom, mosquito, biting black fly, and fig wasp. All that is seen in these organisms is no change ("stasis") or the possibility of extinction. This in no way supports the case for macroevolution, but is certainly what creationists expect.
To conclude, just as the mineralized fossils found in sedimentary rock units worldwide fail to support macroevolution, the same holds true for animals and plants found in "ancient" amber. Creation scientists aren't particularly surprised by the plants, animals, and DNA found in amber considering the youth of this planet. Furthermore, creationists have been requesting these creatures in amber should be subjected to Carbon 14 dating. A similar request is made to date the "70 million year old" soft dinosaur tissue recently discovered in eastern Montana (see Origins Issues "The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue").2 But secular scientists are reticent. Why? The search for truth should actively go where the physical evidence leads.
Amber: A Window to the Recent Past | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515835 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Amber: A Window to the Recent Past
Beautiful, golden fossilized amber begins as resin. Exuded as a sticky liquid from bark or wood, it polymerizes into solid amber. It slowly degrades when left in the open and therefore must be rather quickly buried in dense sediments. There are about twenty amber deposits, the most prominent locations are in the Baltic and Dominican Republic.
Many thousands of amber pieces contain fossils. A variety of animals are preserved in those golden tombs, including insects, crustaceans, tadpoles, lizards, annelids, snails, and spiders. In 1997, a piece of Dominican amber was appraised at $50,000 because it contained a frog. Even hair of mammals has been found. Such preservation gives us an idea of the pre-Flood ecosystem thousands of years ago.
The beautiful and aromatic blue amber of the Dominican Republic is the most rewarding of the ambers for aesthetic and scientific reasons, and holds the record when it comes to fossil content. Not only does this amber contain ten times more insects than Baltic amber, it also is 90% more transparent. Some of the fossilized creatures are extinct, but this is hardly evidence for vertical evolution.
There have even been discoveries of preserved animal and plant DNA, "Amber has preserved ancient life to such infinitesimal detail that it even captures fragments of DNA of the organisms entrapped in it."1 The discovery of DNA segments is not surprising for the creationist. However, it stupefies the Darwinist, because evolutionists maintain that amber is many millions of years old.
The oldest known amber containing insects is — according to evolutionary dating — 146 million years old. But what is found are animal forms that remain unchanged. Secular biologists are constantly amazed that creatures displayed in such a clear sarcophagus can be identified down to genus or even species. For example, small oak tree flowers have been found dated at "90 million years old," but they are still oak. The same is true for the oldest feather (100% feather — not a transition from a scale), the oldest mushroom, mosquito, biting black fly, and fig wasp. All that is seen in these organisms is no change ("stasis") or the possibility of extinction. This in no way supports the case for macroevolution, but is certainly what creationists expect.
To conclude, just as the mineralized fossils found in sedimentary rock units worldwide fail to support macroevolution, the same holds true for animals and plants found in "ancient" amber. Creation scientists aren't particularly surprised by the plants, animals, and DNA found in amber considering the youth of this planet. Furthermore, creationists have been requesting these creatures in amber should be subjected to Carbon 14 dating. A similar request is made to date the "70 million year old" soft dinosaur tissue recently discovered in eastern Montana (see Origins Issues "The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue").2 But secular scientists are reticent. Why? The search for truth should actively go where the physical evidence leads.
Amber: A Window to the Recent Past | The Institute for Creation Research
Again, there is not requirement for a successful life form to "change" as long as its current form can continue reproducing successfully.
That is basic science.
(and more science than you have actually presented in some 3800 posts. )
Amber: A Window to the Recent Past
Beautiful, golden fossilized amber begins as resin. Exuded as a sticky liquid from bark or wood, it polymerizes into solid amber. It slowly degrades when left in the open and therefore must be rather quickly buried in dense sediments. There are about twenty amber deposits, the most prominent locations are in the Baltic and Dominican Republic.
Many thousands of amber pieces contain fossils. A variety of animals are preserved in those golden tombs, including insects, crustaceans, tadpoles, lizards, annelids, snails, and spiders. In 1997, a piece of Dominican amber was appraised at $50,000 because it contained a frog. Even hair of mammals has been found. Such preservation gives us an idea of the pre-Flood ecosystem thousands of years ago.
The beautiful and aromatic blue amber of the Dominican Republic is the most rewarding of the ambers for aesthetic and scientific reasons, and holds the record when it comes to fossil content. Not only does this amber contain ten times more insects than Baltic amber, it also is 90% more transparent. Some of the fossilized creatures are extinct, but this is hardly evidence for vertical evolution.
There have even been discoveries of preserved animal and plant DNA, "Amber has preserved ancient life to such infinitesimal detail that it even captures fragments of DNA of the organisms entrapped in it."1 The discovery of DNA segments is not surprising for the creationist. However, it stupefies the Darwinist, because evolutionists maintain that amber is many millions of years old.
The oldest known amber containing insects is — according to evolutionary dating — 146 million years old. But what is found are animal forms that remain unchanged. Secular biologists are constantly amazed that creatures displayed in such a clear sarcophagus can be identified down to genus or even species. For example, small oak tree flowers have been found dated at "90 million years old," but they are still oak. The same is true for the oldest feather (100% feather — not a transition from a scale), the oldest mushroom, mosquito, biting black fly, and fig wasp. All that is seen in these organisms is no change ("stasis") or the possibility of extinction. This in no way supports the case for macroevolution, but is certainly what creationists expect.
To conclude, just as the mineralized fossils found in sedimentary rock units worldwide fail to support macroevolution, the same holds true for animals and plants found in "ancient" amber. Creation scientists aren't particularly surprised by the plants, animals, and DNA found in amber considering the youth of this planet. Furthermore, creationists have been requesting these creatures in amber should be subjected to Carbon 14 dating. A similar request is made to date the "70 million year old" soft dinosaur tissue recently discovered in eastern Montana (see Origins Issues "The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue").2 But secular scientists are reticent. Why? The search for truth should actively go where the physical evidence leads.
Amber: A Window to the Recent Past | The Institute for Creation Research
Again, there is not requirement for a successful life form to "change" as long as its current form can continue reproducing successfully.
That is basic science.
(and more science than you have actually presented in some 3800 posts. )
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515840 wrote: Again, there is not requirement for a successful life form to "change" as long as its current form can continue reproducing successfully.
That is basic science.
(and more science than you have actually presented in some 3800 posts. )
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils?
The fossil record abounds with the remains of past life. If the creationist interpretation of the fossil record is basically correct, most of the fossils were deposited during the Flood of Noah's day, as "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). These organisms were trapped and buried in ocean-bottom mud, which later hardened into sedimentary rock, fossilizing the organic remains.
But where are the pre-flood human remains? According to Scripture, the patriarchs lived long ages, and had large families and many years of childbearing potential. Where are their fossils?
First, we must rightly consider the nature of the fossil record. Over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures, such as clams, corals, and trilobites—mostly invertebrates with a hard outer surface. Of the remaining five percent, most are plants. Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals. This encompasses reptiles (including dinosaurs)— amphibians, mammals, birds, and humans.
Land creatures have what we call a "low-fossilization potential." As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone. Seawater and bacterial action destroy everything. The scouring ability of underwater mudflows, common during the Flood, would grind bone to powder.
Conversely, what land fossils are found were mostly laid down during the Ice Age— a land-oriented event following the Flood, which had the ability to bury animals in land-derived deposits. (And, by the way, there are human fossils in those sediments.)
But the purpose of Noah's Flood was to destroy the land communities—not preserve them—especially humans. Some creationists even postulate the pre-Flood continents were subducted down into the mantle, totally annihilating all remnants of the civilizations. In any scenario, what land fossils were preserved would be buried late in the Flood, near the surface, and would have been subject to erosion and destruction once again as the Floodwaters rushed off the rising continents.
Furthermore, we mustn’t over-estimate the pre-Flood population, by considering the patriarchal lives and families as typical, for "the earth (was) filled with violence" (Genesis 6:13). Bloodshed would no doubt have terminated many family lines in both humans and animals.
For purposes of discussion, let us assume 300,000,000 people died in the Flood, and that each one was preserved as a fossil evenly distributed in the sedimentary record, which consists of about 300,000,000 cubic miles. The chances of such a fossil intersecting the earth's surface, being found by someone, and then being properly and honestly identified is vanishingly small.
On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils? This is the more vexing question.
Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils? | The Institute for Creation Research
That is basic science.
(and more science than you have actually presented in some 3800 posts. )
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils?
The fossil record abounds with the remains of past life. If the creationist interpretation of the fossil record is basically correct, most of the fossils were deposited during the Flood of Noah's day, as "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). These organisms were trapped and buried in ocean-bottom mud, which later hardened into sedimentary rock, fossilizing the organic remains.
But where are the pre-flood human remains? According to Scripture, the patriarchs lived long ages, and had large families and many years of childbearing potential. Where are their fossils?
First, we must rightly consider the nature of the fossil record. Over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures, such as clams, corals, and trilobites—mostly invertebrates with a hard outer surface. Of the remaining five percent, most are plants. Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals. This encompasses reptiles (including dinosaurs)— amphibians, mammals, birds, and humans.
Land creatures have what we call a "low-fossilization potential." As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone. Seawater and bacterial action destroy everything. The scouring ability of underwater mudflows, common during the Flood, would grind bone to powder.
Conversely, what land fossils are found were mostly laid down during the Ice Age— a land-oriented event following the Flood, which had the ability to bury animals in land-derived deposits. (And, by the way, there are human fossils in those sediments.)
But the purpose of Noah's Flood was to destroy the land communities—not preserve them—especially humans. Some creationists even postulate the pre-Flood continents were subducted down into the mantle, totally annihilating all remnants of the civilizations. In any scenario, what land fossils were preserved would be buried late in the Flood, near the surface, and would have been subject to erosion and destruction once again as the Floodwaters rushed off the rising continents.
Furthermore, we mustn’t over-estimate the pre-Flood population, by considering the patriarchal lives and families as typical, for "the earth (was) filled with violence" (Genesis 6:13). Bloodshed would no doubt have terminated many family lines in both humans and animals.
For purposes of discussion, let us assume 300,000,000 people died in the Flood, and that each one was preserved as a fossil evenly distributed in the sedimentary record, which consists of about 300,000,000 cubic miles. The chances of such a fossil intersecting the earth's surface, being found by someone, and then being properly and honestly identified is vanishingly small.
On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils? This is the more vexing question.
Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils? | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I find it hilarious that he uses the argument that elephants cannot have diversified in such a short term since the flood, therefore Evolution is not so. I find that to mean the entire opposite. It shows that elephants had diversified long BEFORE the flood, thus disproving the flood theory & supporting Evolution.
As for the same old posting about Amber. As I have pointed out before, contrary to what the article says about Amber preserving live DNA, this is not the csae. Amber preserved the SPORES of DNA - an entirely different thing. In order for any life, as we know it, to exist, it has to have water & oxygen. Amber clearly does not preserve this. What it DOES preserve, however, are the spores - the seeds of DNA, which can be preserved for billions of years.
As far as Christianity not recognising Evolution - what twaddle. The Pope has stated categorically that Evolution is real. Are you saying that the Pope is not a Christian?
As for the same old posting about Amber. As I have pointed out before, contrary to what the article says about Amber preserving live DNA, this is not the csae. Amber preserved the SPORES of DNA - an entirely different thing. In order for any life, as we know it, to exist, it has to have water & oxygen. Amber clearly does not preserve this. What it DOES preserve, however, are the spores - the seeds of DNA, which can be preserved for billions of years.
As far as Christianity not recognising Evolution - what twaddle. The Pope has stated categorically that Evolution is real. Are you saying that the Pope is not a Christian?
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515846 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils?
The fossil record abounds with the remains of past life. If the creationist interpretation of the fossil record is basically correct, most of the fossils were deposited during the Flood of Noah's day, as "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). These organisms were trapped and buried in ocean-bottom mud, which later hardened into sedimentary rock, fossilizing the organic remains.
But where are the pre-flood human remains? According to Scripture, the patriarchs lived long ages, and had large families and many years of childbearing potential. Where are their fossils?
First, we must rightly consider the nature of the fossil record. Over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures, such as clams, corals, and trilobites—mostly invertebrates with a hard outer surface. Of the remaining five percent, most are plants. Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals. This encompasses reptiles (including dinosaurs)— amphibians, mammals, birds, and humans.
Land creatures have what we call a "low-fossilization potential." As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone. Seawater and bacterial action destroy everything. The scouring ability of underwater mudflows, common during the Flood, would grind bone to powder.
Conversely, what land fossils are found were mostly laid down during the Ice Age— a land-oriented event following the Flood, which had the ability to bury animals in land-derived deposits. (And, by the way, there are human fossils in those sediments.)
But the purpose of Noah's Flood was to destroy the land communities—not preserve them—especially humans. Some creationists even postulate the pre-Flood continents were subducted down into the mantle, totally annihilating all remnants of the civilizations. In any scenario, what land fossils were preserved would be buried late in the Flood, near the surface, and would have been subject to erosion and destruction once again as the Floodwaters rushed off the rising continents.
Furthermore, we mustn’t over-estimate the pre-Flood population, by considering the patriarchal lives and families as typical, for "the earth (was) filled with violence" (Genesis 6:13). Bloodshed would no doubt have terminated many family lines in both humans and animals.
For purposes of discussion, let us assume 300,000,000 people died in the Flood, and that each one was preserved as a fossil evenly distributed in the sedimentary record, which consists of about 300,000,000 cubic miles. The chances of such a fossil intersecting the earth's surface, being found by someone, and then being properly and honestly identified is vanishingly small.
On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils? This is the more vexing question.
Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils? | The Institute for Creation Research
I LOVE this one.
So all the fossils are a result of the Flood, and yet there were virtually no fossils of the hundreds of millions of humans that perished in the flood. But we find fossils of Neanderthal and other proto-human species all over the place.
Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils?
The fossil record abounds with the remains of past life. If the creationist interpretation of the fossil record is basically correct, most of the fossils were deposited during the Flood of Noah's day, as "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). These organisms were trapped and buried in ocean-bottom mud, which later hardened into sedimentary rock, fossilizing the organic remains.
But where are the pre-flood human remains? According to Scripture, the patriarchs lived long ages, and had large families and many years of childbearing potential. Where are their fossils?
First, we must rightly consider the nature of the fossil record. Over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures, such as clams, corals, and trilobites—mostly invertebrates with a hard outer surface. Of the remaining five percent, most are plants. Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals. This encompasses reptiles (including dinosaurs)— amphibians, mammals, birds, and humans.
Land creatures have what we call a "low-fossilization potential." As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone. Seawater and bacterial action destroy everything. The scouring ability of underwater mudflows, common during the Flood, would grind bone to powder.
Conversely, what land fossils are found were mostly laid down during the Ice Age— a land-oriented event following the Flood, which had the ability to bury animals in land-derived deposits. (And, by the way, there are human fossils in those sediments.)
But the purpose of Noah's Flood was to destroy the land communities—not preserve them—especially humans. Some creationists even postulate the pre-Flood continents were subducted down into the mantle, totally annihilating all remnants of the civilizations. In any scenario, what land fossils were preserved would be buried late in the Flood, near the surface, and would have been subject to erosion and destruction once again as the Floodwaters rushed off the rising continents.
Furthermore, we mustn’t over-estimate the pre-Flood population, by considering the patriarchal lives and families as typical, for "the earth (was) filled with violence" (Genesis 6:13). Bloodshed would no doubt have terminated many family lines in both humans and animals.
For purposes of discussion, let us assume 300,000,000 people died in the Flood, and that each one was preserved as a fossil evenly distributed in the sedimentary record, which consists of about 300,000,000 cubic miles. The chances of such a fossil intersecting the earth's surface, being found by someone, and then being properly and honestly identified is vanishingly small.
On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils? This is the more vexing question.
Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils? | The Institute for Creation Research
I LOVE this one.
So all the fossils are a result of the Flood, and yet there were virtually no fossils of the hundreds of millions of humans that perished in the flood. But we find fossils of Neanderthal and other proto-human species all over the place.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515840 wrote: Again, there is not requirement for a successful life form to "change" as long as its current form can continue reproducing successfully.
That is basic science.
(and more science than you have actually presented in some 3800 posts. )
A typical Creationist view, though. They don't understand that Evolution is about diversification of species, rather than replacement of species. They try to argue the Science, without even understanding the idea of the Theory.
Science believes all human life to have begun in Africa - this could fall in line with Creationist theory (although the question of how a solitary Man & a Woman who had 3 sons, 2 of which could then go & find wives from the Sons of Man always remains unanswered). The point is that according to simple genetics each generation would remain the same colour & build as that of its ancestry. But the fact is it doesn't. Colours change. Physical structure (both musculature & skeletal) change. Nowadays we have thousands of skin tones & body types spread all across the world. According to Creationist logic, this would not be possible, as the original (Blacks) would no longer exist.
That is basic science.
(and more science than you have actually presented in some 3800 posts. )
A typical Creationist view, though. They don't understand that Evolution is about diversification of species, rather than replacement of species. They try to argue the Science, without even understanding the idea of the Theory.
Science believes all human life to have begun in Africa - this could fall in line with Creationist theory (although the question of how a solitary Man & a Woman who had 3 sons, 2 of which could then go & find wives from the Sons of Man always remains unanswered). The point is that according to simple genetics each generation would remain the same colour & build as that of its ancestry. But the fact is it doesn't. Colours change. Physical structure (both musculature & skeletal) change. Nowadays we have thousands of skin tones & body types spread all across the world. According to Creationist logic, this would not be possible, as the original (Blacks) would no longer exist.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1515849 wrote: I find it hilarious that he uses the argument that elephants cannot have diversified in such a short term since the flood, therefore Evolution is not so. I find that to mean the entire opposite. It shows that elephants had diversified long BEFORE the flood, thus disproving the flood theory & supporting Evolution.
As for the same old posting about Amber. As I have pointed out before, contrary to what the article says about Amber preserving live DNA, this is not the csae. Amber preserved the SPORES of DNA - an entirely different thing. In order for any life, as we know it, to exist, it has to have water & oxygen. Amber clearly does not preserve this. What it DOES preserve, however, are the spores - the seeds of DNA, which can be preserved for billions of years.
As far as Christianity not recognising Evolution - what twaddle. The Pope has stated categorically that Evolution is real. Are you saying that the Pope is not a Christian?
Yes. Evolution teaches that everything created itself without any help from God. Christianity teaches God created everything and everyone. These are contradictory statements and cannot both be true. Those who accept evolution reject the revelation from God that He created everything and everyone.
As for the flood, consider this:
Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence
When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.
Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures
Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals
We find extensive fossil “graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.
Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard
Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.
Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers
Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances
We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.
Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country
Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata
We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.
Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion
Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession
Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.
Focus in: Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
What now?
The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ. But just reading the evidence isn’t enough. The message of salvation founded in the Bible's history is also true, and, God wants us to accept the gift of salvation He freely offers us.
The evidence is real. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and in His creation (Romans 1:20).
How will you respond?
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -evidence/
As for the same old posting about Amber. As I have pointed out before, contrary to what the article says about Amber preserving live DNA, this is not the csae. Amber preserved the SPORES of DNA - an entirely different thing. In order for any life, as we know it, to exist, it has to have water & oxygen. Amber clearly does not preserve this. What it DOES preserve, however, are the spores - the seeds of DNA, which can be preserved for billions of years.
As far as Christianity not recognising Evolution - what twaddle. The Pope has stated categorically that Evolution is real. Are you saying that the Pope is not a Christian?
Yes. Evolution teaches that everything created itself without any help from God. Christianity teaches God created everything and everyone. These are contradictory statements and cannot both be true. Those who accept evolution reject the revelation from God that He created everything and everyone.
As for the flood, consider this:
Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence
When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.
Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures
Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals
We find extensive fossil “graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.
Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard
Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.
Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers
Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances
We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.
Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country
Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata
We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.
Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion
Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession
Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.
Focus in: Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
What now?
The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ. But just reading the evidence isn’t enough. The message of salvation founded in the Bible's history is also true, and, God wants us to accept the gift of salvation He freely offers us.
The evidence is real. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and in His creation (Romans 1:20).
How will you respond?
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -evidence/
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515852 wrote: I LOVE this one.
So all the fossils are a result of the Flood, and yet there were virtually no fossils of the hundreds of millions of humans that perished in the flood. But we find fossils of Neanderthal and other proto-human species all over the place.
The reason there are few human fossils is they are smarter and more mobile and escaped the Flood waters longer and were not subject to burial. On the other hand, if humans have been around for millions of years, according to evolution, there would be trillions of fossils.
So all the fossils are a result of the Flood, and yet there were virtually no fossils of the hundreds of millions of humans that perished in the flood. But we find fossils of Neanderthal and other proto-human species all over the place.
The reason there are few human fossils is they are smarter and more mobile and escaped the Flood waters longer and were not subject to burial. On the other hand, if humans have been around for millions of years, according to evolution, there would be trillions of fossils.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1515854 wrote: A typical Creationist view, though. They don't understand that Evolution is about diversification of species, rather than replacement of species. They try to argue the Science, without even understanding the idea of the Theory.
Science believes all human life to have begun in Africa - this could fall in line with Creationist theory (although the question of how a solitary Man & a Woman who had 3 sons, 2 of which could then go & find wives from the Sons of Man always remains unanswered). The point is that according to simple genetics each generation would remain the same colour & build as that of its ancestry. But the fact is it doesn't. Colours change. Physical structure (both musculature & skeletal) change. Nowadays we have thousands of skin tones & body types spread all across the world. According to Creationist logic, this would not be possible, as the original (Blacks) would no longer exist.
When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
Remember, Adam and Eve lived over 900 years, as did many of their children before the Flood. We are told of three sons, but how many children could a couple have in 900 years? Brothers and sisters married at that time.
Science believes all human life to have begun in Africa - this could fall in line with Creationist theory (although the question of how a solitary Man & a Woman who had 3 sons, 2 of which could then go & find wives from the Sons of Man always remains unanswered). The point is that according to simple genetics each generation would remain the same colour & build as that of its ancestry. But the fact is it doesn't. Colours change. Physical structure (both musculature & skeletal) change. Nowadays we have thousands of skin tones & body types spread all across the world. According to Creationist logic, this would not be possible, as the original (Blacks) would no longer exist.
When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
Remember, Adam and Eve lived over 900 years, as did many of their children before the Flood. We are told of three sons, but how many children could a couple have in 900 years? Brothers and sisters married at that time.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515897 wrote: The reason there are few human fossils is they are smarter and more mobile and escaped the Flood waters longer and were not subject to burial. On the other hand, if humans have been around for millions of years, according to evolution, there would be trillions of fossils.
I do not recall seeing anywhere that humans have been around for millions of years.
Yes, there is evidence that Homo Sapiens may have been around for longer than the 10-15 thousand that is generally accepted. perhaps they have been around as far back as a few hundred thousand years, but that has yet to be proven.
I do not recall seeing anywhere that humans have been around for millions of years.
Yes, there is evidence that Homo Sapiens may have been around for longer than the 10-15 thousand that is generally accepted. perhaps they have been around as far back as a few hundred thousand years, but that has yet to be proven.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515901 wrote: I do not recall seeing anywhere that humans have been around for millions of years.
Yes, there is evidence that Homo Sapiens may have been around for longer than the 10-15 thousand that is generally accepted. perhaps they have been around as far back as a few hundred thousand years, but that has yet to be proven.
According to evolution they have been in existence for several million years. For example:
Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Yes, there is evidence that Homo Sapiens may have been around for longer than the 10-15 thousand that is generally accepted. perhaps they have been around as far back as a few hundred thousand years, but that has yet to be proven.
According to evolution they have been in existence for several million years. For example:
Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515903 wrote: According to evolution they have been in existence for several million years. For example:
Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Well, don't stop there.
The rest of the story:
One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.
Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.
Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.
Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
What that says is that the creature that are thought to be early predecessors of Humans were around a few million years ago, not Humans.
And there are fossils of those critters from that time period. Evidence of actual humans seems at this time, to date back a few hundred thousand years.
Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Well, don't stop there.
The rest of the story:
One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.
Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.
Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.
Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
What that says is that the creature that are thought to be early predecessors of Humans were around a few million years ago, not Humans.
And there are fossils of those critters from that time period. Evidence of actual humans seems at this time, to date back a few hundred thousand years.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515907 wrote:
Well, don't stop there.
The rest of the story:
One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.
Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.
Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.
Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
What that says is that the creature that are thought to be early predecessors of Humans were around a few million years ago, not Humans.
And there are fossils of those critters from that time period. Evidence of actual humans seems at this time, to date back a few hundred thousand years.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution
The Bible describes humans as being created in the image of God—the pinnacle of His creation. In contrast, those who embrace the presupposition of naturalistic origins have put much effort and even monkey business into a propaganda crusade to claim a bestial origin for man.
The idea that humans evolved from an ape-like creature was first widely promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s and later by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man—published 12 years after his acclaimed evolutionary treatise On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley, a friend of Darwin, also did much to popularize this idea. Since then, the secular scientific community has promulgated the still-hypothetical idea of human evolution as an established fact.1
After the 150-plus years since Darwin’s famous publication, we still have no fossil evidence demonstrating human evolution. Darwin believed such fossils would eventually be found, but that has simply not been the case. The following quotes from evolutionists themselves accurately sum up the current state of affairs regarding the fossil record and its wholesale lack of support for human evolution.
The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa.2
But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.3
The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.4
The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research
Although paleontological evidence has been lacking, in more recent times evidence supporting human evolution was thought to have been found in the DNA of living apes and humans. This article will evaluate the popular myth of human-chimpanzee DNA similarity along with recent research showing that a broad and unbridgeable chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes.
DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples.5 Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was.6 These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish.
As DNA sequencing became more advanced, scientists were able to compare the actual order of DNA bases (nucleotides) between DNA sequences from different creatures. This was done in a process in which similar DNA segments could be directly matched up or aligned. The differences were then calculated.
Little progress was made in comparing large regions of DNA between chimpanzees and humans until the genomics revolution in the 21st century with its emphasis on developing new technologies to sequence the human genome. Between 2002 and 2005, a variety of reports was published that on the surface seemed to support the 98.5% DNA similarity myth.
However, a careful analysis of these publications reported by this author showed that the researchers were only including data on the most highly aligning sequences and omitting gaps and regions that did not align.5 Once again, we had the same old problem of cherry-picking the data that support evolution while ignoring everything else. However, at least three of these papers described the amount of non-similar data that was thrown out. When those missing data were included in the original numbers, an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees was only about 81 to 87%, depending on the paper!
Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task. One of the main problems is that the current chimpanzee genome wasn’t constructed based on its own merits. When DNA is sequenced, it’s produced in millions of small pieces that must be “stitched together with powerful computers.
In large mammalian genomes like the chimpanzee, this isn’t easy, especially since very few genetic resources exist to aid the effort compared to those available for the human genome project. Because of this resource issue, a limited budget, and a healthy dose of evolutionary bias, the chimpanzee genome was put together using the human genome as a guide or scaffold onto which the little DNA sequence snippets were organized and stitched together.7 Therefore, the current chimpanzee genome appears much more human-like than it really is. In fact, a recent study by this author showed that individual raw chimpanzee DNA sequences that had poor similarity to human sequences aligned very poorly (if at all) onto the chimpanzee genome that had been assembled using the human genome as a framework.8 This is a dramatic illustration that it is not an authentic representation of the actual chimpanzee genome.
Another serious problem with the chimpanzee genome is that it appears to contain significant levels of human DNA contamination. When DNA samples are prepared in the laboratory for sequencing, it’s common to have DNA from human lab workers get into the samples. Several secular studies show that many non-primate DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA.9,10
A recent study by this author shows that a little over half of the data sets used to construct the chimpanzee genome contain significantly higher levels of human DNA than the others.8 These data sets with apparent high levels of human DNA contamination were the ones utilized during the first phase of the project that led to the famous 2005 chimpanzee genome publication.11 The data sets produced after this were added on top of the ones in the initial assembly. So, not only was the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as a scaffold, but research indicates that it was constructed with significant levels of contaminating human DNA. This would explain why raw unassembled chimpanzee DNA sequences are difficult to align onto the chimpanzee genome with high accuracy; it’s because it’s considerably more human-like than it should be.
So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human.
What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean?
So, what does 85% DNA similarity really mean? First of all, it’s important to note that for human evolution to seem plausible, a DNA similarity of 99% is required. This is based on known current mutation rates in humans and an alleged splitting of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about three to six million years ago. This length of time is a mere second on the evolutionary timescale. Any level of similarity much less than 99% is evolutionarily impossible. This is why evolutionists rely on all sorts of monkey business when it comes to comparing human and chimpanzee DNA—they must achieve a figure close to 99% or their model collapses.
So, what if humans and chimpanzees are only about 85% similar in their DNA? Isn’t this pretty close, too, even if it puts evolution out of the picture? In reality, this level of similarity is exactly what one would expect from a creation perspective because of certain basic similarities in overall body plans and cellular physiology between humans and chimpanzees. After all, DNA is not called the genetic code for nothing. Just as different software programs on a computer have similar sections of code because they perform similar functions, the same similarity exists between different creatures in certain sections of their genomes. This is not evidence that one evolved from another but rather that both creatures were engineered along similar basic principles. DNA similarities between different creatures are evidence of common engineered design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA sequences are unexplainable by alleged evolutionary processes is also strong evidence of design.
The Bible says that every living thing was created according to its kind. This fits the clear, observable boundaries we see in nature between types of creatures, as well as the distinct boundaries researchers find in genomes as DNA sequencing science progresses.
In regard to humans, we are not only a distinctly different kind compared to chimpanzees and other apes, but we are also the one part of creation that stands out above all other living forms because the Bible states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).
Not only is evolution a false paradigm lacking scientific support, it also directly attacks one of the key paradigms of the Bible. Humanity’s unique creation in God’s image is foundational to why Jesus Christ came to redeem us. Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.
DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
Well, don't stop there.
The rest of the story:
One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.
Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.
Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.
Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
What that says is that the creature that are thought to be early predecessors of Humans were around a few million years ago, not Humans.
And there are fossils of those critters from that time period. Evidence of actual humans seems at this time, to date back a few hundred thousand years.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution
The Bible describes humans as being created in the image of God—the pinnacle of His creation. In contrast, those who embrace the presupposition of naturalistic origins have put much effort and even monkey business into a propaganda crusade to claim a bestial origin for man.
The idea that humans evolved from an ape-like creature was first widely promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s and later by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man—published 12 years after his acclaimed evolutionary treatise On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley, a friend of Darwin, also did much to popularize this idea. Since then, the secular scientific community has promulgated the still-hypothetical idea of human evolution as an established fact.1
After the 150-plus years since Darwin’s famous publication, we still have no fossil evidence demonstrating human evolution. Darwin believed such fossils would eventually be found, but that has simply not been the case. The following quotes from evolutionists themselves accurately sum up the current state of affairs regarding the fossil record and its wholesale lack of support for human evolution.
The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa.2
But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.3
The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.4
The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research
Although paleontological evidence has been lacking, in more recent times evidence supporting human evolution was thought to have been found in the DNA of living apes and humans. This article will evaluate the popular myth of human-chimpanzee DNA similarity along with recent research showing that a broad and unbridgeable chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes.
DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples.5 Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was.6 These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish.
As DNA sequencing became more advanced, scientists were able to compare the actual order of DNA bases (nucleotides) between DNA sequences from different creatures. This was done in a process in which similar DNA segments could be directly matched up or aligned. The differences were then calculated.
Little progress was made in comparing large regions of DNA between chimpanzees and humans until the genomics revolution in the 21st century with its emphasis on developing new technologies to sequence the human genome. Between 2002 and 2005, a variety of reports was published that on the surface seemed to support the 98.5% DNA similarity myth.
However, a careful analysis of these publications reported by this author showed that the researchers were only including data on the most highly aligning sequences and omitting gaps and regions that did not align.5 Once again, we had the same old problem of cherry-picking the data that support evolution while ignoring everything else. However, at least three of these papers described the amount of non-similar data that was thrown out. When those missing data were included in the original numbers, an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees was only about 81 to 87%, depending on the paper!
Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task. One of the main problems is that the current chimpanzee genome wasn’t constructed based on its own merits. When DNA is sequenced, it’s produced in millions of small pieces that must be “stitched together with powerful computers.
In large mammalian genomes like the chimpanzee, this isn’t easy, especially since very few genetic resources exist to aid the effort compared to those available for the human genome project. Because of this resource issue, a limited budget, and a healthy dose of evolutionary bias, the chimpanzee genome was put together using the human genome as a guide or scaffold onto which the little DNA sequence snippets were organized and stitched together.7 Therefore, the current chimpanzee genome appears much more human-like than it really is. In fact, a recent study by this author showed that individual raw chimpanzee DNA sequences that had poor similarity to human sequences aligned very poorly (if at all) onto the chimpanzee genome that had been assembled using the human genome as a framework.8 This is a dramatic illustration that it is not an authentic representation of the actual chimpanzee genome.
Another serious problem with the chimpanzee genome is that it appears to contain significant levels of human DNA contamination. When DNA samples are prepared in the laboratory for sequencing, it’s common to have DNA from human lab workers get into the samples. Several secular studies show that many non-primate DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA.9,10
A recent study by this author shows that a little over half of the data sets used to construct the chimpanzee genome contain significantly higher levels of human DNA than the others.8 These data sets with apparent high levels of human DNA contamination were the ones utilized during the first phase of the project that led to the famous 2005 chimpanzee genome publication.11 The data sets produced after this were added on top of the ones in the initial assembly. So, not only was the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as a scaffold, but research indicates that it was constructed with significant levels of contaminating human DNA. This would explain why raw unassembled chimpanzee DNA sequences are difficult to align onto the chimpanzee genome with high accuracy; it’s because it’s considerably more human-like than it should be.
So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human.
What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean?
So, what does 85% DNA similarity really mean? First of all, it’s important to note that for human evolution to seem plausible, a DNA similarity of 99% is required. This is based on known current mutation rates in humans and an alleged splitting of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about three to six million years ago. This length of time is a mere second on the evolutionary timescale. Any level of similarity much less than 99% is evolutionarily impossible. This is why evolutionists rely on all sorts of monkey business when it comes to comparing human and chimpanzee DNA—they must achieve a figure close to 99% or their model collapses.
So, what if humans and chimpanzees are only about 85% similar in their DNA? Isn’t this pretty close, too, even if it puts evolution out of the picture? In reality, this level of similarity is exactly what one would expect from a creation perspective because of certain basic similarities in overall body plans and cellular physiology between humans and chimpanzees. After all, DNA is not called the genetic code for nothing. Just as different software programs on a computer have similar sections of code because they perform similar functions, the same similarity exists between different creatures in certain sections of their genomes. This is not evidence that one evolved from another but rather that both creatures were engineered along similar basic principles. DNA similarities between different creatures are evidence of common engineered design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA sequences are unexplainable by alleged evolutionary processes is also strong evidence of design.
The Bible says that every living thing was created according to its kind. This fits the clear, observable boundaries we see in nature between types of creatures, as well as the distinct boundaries researchers find in genomes as DNA sequencing science progresses.
In regard to humans, we are not only a distinctly different kind compared to chimpanzees and other apes, but we are also the one part of creation that stands out above all other living forms because the Bible states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).
Not only is evolution a false paradigm lacking scientific support, it also directly attacks one of the key paradigms of the Bible. Humanity’s unique creation in God’s image is foundational to why Jesus Christ came to redeem us. Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.
DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515919 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution
The Bible describes humans as being created in the image of God—the pinnacle of His creation. In contrast, those who embrace the presupposition of naturalistic origins have put much effort and even monkey business into a propaganda crusade to claim a bestial origin for man.
The idea that humans evolved from an ape-like creature was first widely promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s and later by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man—published 12 years after his acclaimed evolutionary treatise On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley, a friend of Darwin, also did much to popularize this idea. Since then, the secular scientific community has promulgated the still-hypothetical idea of human evolution as an established fact.1
After the 150-plus years since Darwin’s famous publication, we still have no fossil evidence demonstrating human evolution. Darwin believed such fossils would eventually be found, but that has simply not been the case. The following quotes from evolutionists themselves accurately sum up the current state of affairs regarding the fossil record and its wholesale lack of support for human evolution.
The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa.2
But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.3
The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.4
The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research
Although paleontological evidence has been lacking, in more recent times evidence supporting human evolution was thought to have been found in the DNA of living apes and humans. This article will evaluate the popular myth of human-chimpanzee DNA similarity along with recent research showing that a broad and unbridgeable chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes.
DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples.5 Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was.6 These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish.
As DNA sequencing became more advanced, scientists were able to compare the actual order of DNA bases (nucleotides) between DNA sequences from different creatures. This was done in a process in which similar DNA segments could be directly matched up or aligned. The differences were then calculated.
Little progress was made in comparing large regions of DNA between chimpanzees and humans until the genomics revolution in the 21st century with its emphasis on developing new technologies to sequence the human genome. Between 2002 and 2005, a variety of reports was published that on the surface seemed to support the 98.5% DNA similarity myth.
However, a careful analysis of these publications reported by this author showed that the researchers were only including data on the most highly aligning sequences and omitting gaps and regions that did not align.5 Once again, we had the same old problem of cherry-picking the data that support evolution while ignoring everything else. However, at least three of these papers described the amount of non-similar data that was thrown out. When those missing data were included in the original numbers, an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees was only about 81 to 87%, depending on the paper!
Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task. One of the main problems is that the current chimpanzee genome wasn’t constructed based on its own merits. When DNA is sequenced, it’s produced in millions of small pieces that must be “stitched together with powerful computers.
In large mammalian genomes like the chimpanzee, this isn’t easy, especially since very few genetic resources exist to aid the effort compared to those available for the human genome project. Because of this resource issue, a limited budget, and a healthy dose of evolutionary bias, the chimpanzee genome was put together using the human genome as a guide or scaffold onto which the little DNA sequence snippets were organized and stitched together.7 Therefore, the current chimpanzee genome appears much more human-like than it really is. In fact, a recent study by this author showed that individual raw chimpanzee DNA sequences that had poor similarity to human sequences aligned very poorly (if at all) onto the chimpanzee genome that had been assembled using the human genome as a framework.8 This is a dramatic illustration that it is not an authentic representation of the actual chimpanzee genome.
Another serious problem with the chimpanzee genome is that it appears to contain significant levels of human DNA contamination. When DNA samples are prepared in the laboratory for sequencing, it’s common to have DNA from human lab workers get into the samples. Several secular studies show that many non-primate DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA.9,10
A recent study by this author shows that a little over half of the data sets used to construct the chimpanzee genome contain significantly higher levels of human DNA than the others.8 These data sets with apparent high levels of human DNA contamination were the ones utilized during the first phase of the project that led to the famous 2005 chimpanzee genome publication.11 The data sets produced after this were added on top of the ones in the initial assembly. So, not only was the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as a scaffold, but research indicates that it was constructed with significant levels of contaminating human DNA. This would explain why raw unassembled chimpanzee DNA sequences are difficult to align onto the chimpanzee genome with high accuracy; it’s because it’s considerably more human-like than it should be.
So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human.
What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean?
So, what does 85% DNA similarity really mean? First of all, it’s important to note that for human evolution to seem plausible, a DNA similarity of 99% is required. This is based on known current mutation rates in humans and an alleged splitting of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about three to six million years ago. This length of time is a mere second on the evolutionary timescale. Any level of similarity much less than 99% is evolutionarily impossible. This is why evolutionists rely on all sorts of monkey business when it comes to comparing human and chimpanzee DNA—they must achieve a figure close to 99% or their model collapses.
So, what if humans and chimpanzees are only about 85% similar in their DNA? Isn’t this pretty close, too, even if it puts evolution out of the picture? In reality, this level of similarity is exactly what one would expect from a creation perspective because of certain basic similarities in overall body plans and cellular physiology between humans and chimpanzees. After all, DNA is not called the genetic code for nothing. Just as different software programs on a computer have similar sections of code because they perform similar functions, the same similarity exists between different creatures in certain sections of their genomes. This is not evidence that one evolved from another but rather that both creatures were engineered along similar basic principles. DNA similarities between different creatures are evidence of common engineered design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA sequences are unexplainable by alleged evolutionary processes is also strong evidence of design.
The Bible says that every living thing was created according to its kind. This fits the clear, observable boundaries we see in nature between types of creatures, as well as the distinct boundaries researchers find in genomes as DNA sequencing science progresses.
In regard to humans, we are not only a distinctly different kind compared to chimpanzees and other apes, but we are also the one part of creation that stands out above all other living forms because the Bible states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).
Not only is evolution a false paradigm lacking scientific support, it also directly attacks one of the key paradigms of the Bible. Humanity’s unique creation in God’s image is foundational to why Jesus Christ came to redeem us. Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.
DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
That is all very interesting, but irrelevant.
You proposed the Science part of this conversation, and yet, ignore Science.
Like it or not, the Bible is not Science.
Humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins. The expression or activity patterns of genes differ across species in ways that help explain each species' distinct biology and behavior.
DNA factors that contribute to the differences were described on Nov. 6 at the American Society of Human Genetics 2012 meeting in a presentation by Yoav Gilad, Ph.D., associate professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Gilad reported that up to 40% of the differences in the expression or activity patterns of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine whether and how a gene's recipe for a protein is transcribed to the RNA molecule that carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.
...
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-11-humans-ch ... e.html#jCp
DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution
The Bible describes humans as being created in the image of God—the pinnacle of His creation. In contrast, those who embrace the presupposition of naturalistic origins have put much effort and even monkey business into a propaganda crusade to claim a bestial origin for man.
The idea that humans evolved from an ape-like creature was first widely promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s and later by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man—published 12 years after his acclaimed evolutionary treatise On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley, a friend of Darwin, also did much to popularize this idea. Since then, the secular scientific community has promulgated the still-hypothetical idea of human evolution as an established fact.1
After the 150-plus years since Darwin’s famous publication, we still have no fossil evidence demonstrating human evolution. Darwin believed such fossils would eventually be found, but that has simply not been the case. The following quotes from evolutionists themselves accurately sum up the current state of affairs regarding the fossil record and its wholesale lack of support for human evolution.
The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa.2
But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.3
The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.4
The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research
Although paleontological evidence has been lacking, in more recent times evidence supporting human evolution was thought to have been found in the DNA of living apes and humans. This article will evaluate the popular myth of human-chimpanzee DNA similarity along with recent research showing that a broad and unbridgeable chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes.
DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples.5 Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was.6 These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish.
As DNA sequencing became more advanced, scientists were able to compare the actual order of DNA bases (nucleotides) between DNA sequences from different creatures. This was done in a process in which similar DNA segments could be directly matched up or aligned. The differences were then calculated.
Little progress was made in comparing large regions of DNA between chimpanzees and humans until the genomics revolution in the 21st century with its emphasis on developing new technologies to sequence the human genome. Between 2002 and 2005, a variety of reports was published that on the surface seemed to support the 98.5% DNA similarity myth.
However, a careful analysis of these publications reported by this author showed that the researchers were only including data on the most highly aligning sequences and omitting gaps and regions that did not align.5 Once again, we had the same old problem of cherry-picking the data that support evolution while ignoring everything else. However, at least three of these papers described the amount of non-similar data that was thrown out. When those missing data were included in the original numbers, an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees was only about 81 to 87%, depending on the paper!
Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task. One of the main problems is that the current chimpanzee genome wasn’t constructed based on its own merits. When DNA is sequenced, it’s produced in millions of small pieces that must be “stitched together with powerful computers.
In large mammalian genomes like the chimpanzee, this isn’t easy, especially since very few genetic resources exist to aid the effort compared to those available for the human genome project. Because of this resource issue, a limited budget, and a healthy dose of evolutionary bias, the chimpanzee genome was put together using the human genome as a guide or scaffold onto which the little DNA sequence snippets were organized and stitched together.7 Therefore, the current chimpanzee genome appears much more human-like than it really is. In fact, a recent study by this author showed that individual raw chimpanzee DNA sequences that had poor similarity to human sequences aligned very poorly (if at all) onto the chimpanzee genome that had been assembled using the human genome as a framework.8 This is a dramatic illustration that it is not an authentic representation of the actual chimpanzee genome.
Another serious problem with the chimpanzee genome is that it appears to contain significant levels of human DNA contamination. When DNA samples are prepared in the laboratory for sequencing, it’s common to have DNA from human lab workers get into the samples. Several secular studies show that many non-primate DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA.9,10
A recent study by this author shows that a little over half of the data sets used to construct the chimpanzee genome contain significantly higher levels of human DNA than the others.8 These data sets with apparent high levels of human DNA contamination were the ones utilized during the first phase of the project that led to the famous 2005 chimpanzee genome publication.11 The data sets produced after this were added on top of the ones in the initial assembly. So, not only was the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as a scaffold, but research indicates that it was constructed with significant levels of contaminating human DNA. This would explain why raw unassembled chimpanzee DNA sequences are difficult to align onto the chimpanzee genome with high accuracy; it’s because it’s considerably more human-like than it should be.
So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human.
What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean?
So, what does 85% DNA similarity really mean? First of all, it’s important to note that for human evolution to seem plausible, a DNA similarity of 99% is required. This is based on known current mutation rates in humans and an alleged splitting of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about three to six million years ago. This length of time is a mere second on the evolutionary timescale. Any level of similarity much less than 99% is evolutionarily impossible. This is why evolutionists rely on all sorts of monkey business when it comes to comparing human and chimpanzee DNA—they must achieve a figure close to 99% or their model collapses.
So, what if humans and chimpanzees are only about 85% similar in their DNA? Isn’t this pretty close, too, even if it puts evolution out of the picture? In reality, this level of similarity is exactly what one would expect from a creation perspective because of certain basic similarities in overall body plans and cellular physiology between humans and chimpanzees. After all, DNA is not called the genetic code for nothing. Just as different software programs on a computer have similar sections of code because they perform similar functions, the same similarity exists between different creatures in certain sections of their genomes. This is not evidence that one evolved from another but rather that both creatures were engineered along similar basic principles. DNA similarities between different creatures are evidence of common engineered design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA sequences are unexplainable by alleged evolutionary processes is also strong evidence of design.
The Bible says that every living thing was created according to its kind. This fits the clear, observable boundaries we see in nature between types of creatures, as well as the distinct boundaries researchers find in genomes as DNA sequencing science progresses.
In regard to humans, we are not only a distinctly different kind compared to chimpanzees and other apes, but we are also the one part of creation that stands out above all other living forms because the Bible states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).
Not only is evolution a false paradigm lacking scientific support, it also directly attacks one of the key paradigms of the Bible. Humanity’s unique creation in God’s image is foundational to why Jesus Christ came to redeem us. Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.
DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
That is all very interesting, but irrelevant.
You proposed the Science part of this conversation, and yet, ignore Science.
Like it or not, the Bible is not Science.
Humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins. The expression or activity patterns of genes differ across species in ways that help explain each species' distinct biology and behavior.
DNA factors that contribute to the differences were described on Nov. 6 at the American Society of Human Genetics 2012 meeting in a presentation by Yoav Gilad, Ph.D., associate professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Gilad reported that up to 40% of the differences in the expression or activity patterns of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine whether and how a gene's recipe for a protein is transcribed to the RNA molecule that carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.
...
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-11-humans-ch ... e.html#jCp
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515896 wrote: Yes. Evolution teaches that everything created itself without any help from God. Christianity teaches God created everything and everyone. These are contradictory statements and cannot both be true. Those who accept evolution reject the revelation from God that He created everything and everyone.
Evolution teaches nothing of the sort. Evolution says absolutely nothing about Creation, by God or otherwise. Evolution, by definition relates to the change of something that already exists. Once again you are using the Creationist's typical technique of using a False Premise on which to form an argument. Before you argue anything you should, at least, know the facts of what it is you are denying. Evolution relates to CHANGE not to CREATION. The basic Ameno Acids which later went to form DNA existed. They CHANGED to form basic DNA which, in turn, went on to CHANGE into other combinations of Genes making up the DNA, gradually increasing in complexity.
Evolution teaches nothing of the sort. Evolution says absolutely nothing about Creation, by God or otherwise. Evolution, by definition relates to the change of something that already exists. Once again you are using the Creationist's typical technique of using a False Premise on which to form an argument. Before you argue anything you should, at least, know the facts of what it is you are denying. Evolution relates to CHANGE not to CREATION. The basic Ameno Acids which later went to form DNA existed. They CHANGED to form basic DNA which, in turn, went on to CHANGE into other combinations of Genes making up the DNA, gradually increasing in complexity.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515920 wrote: That is all very interesting, but irrelevant.
You proposed the Science part of this conversation, and yet, ignore Science.
Like it or not, the Bible is not Science.
Humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins. The expression or activity patterns of genes differ across species in ways that help explain each species' distinct biology and behavior.
DNA factors that contribute to the differences were described on Nov. 6 at the American Society of Human Genetics 2012 meeting in a presentation by Yoav Gilad, Ph.D., associate professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Gilad reported that up to 40% of the differences in the expression or activity patterns of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine whether and how a gene's recipe for a protein is transcribed to the RNA molecule that carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.
...
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-11-humans-ch ... e.html#jCp
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Massive Genetic Study Purporting Human Evolution Debunked
The recent publication of a research paper evoked such headlines as “Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving.1,2 Despite the improvement of health-care technology, many other studies indicate that chronic disease among humans is increasing worldwide—and that mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement.3,4 A closer analysis of this new study shows that its evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. This is exactly what modern biomedical data shows and the Bible indicates is happening due to the effects of the Fall where the whole creation is subject to corruption.
Mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. Tweet: Mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
Even from a purely naturalistic perspective, studying alleged human evolution is notoriously difficult. Unlike animals, humans create highly complex cultures and distinctive societal systems, including sophisticated health care programs that treat disease and improve and extend life. Secondly, the study of human health and disease is highly complicated with nearly all traits being controlled and affected by numerous genes and various types of regulatory DNA sequences in the genome. Sorting out the contributions of each individual DNA feature to a particular disease or health-related outcome can be extremely difficult.
In the highly theoretical study of human evolution, scientists postulate that mystical and mostly undefinable selective pressures operate to somehow mold the genome over time leading to upward improvement and change. It’s claimed that the effects of these selective processes can be statistically detected when analyzing large genetic data sets.
In this recent study, scientists analyzed large biomedical and genetic datasets of common human DNA variants in the United Kingdom, including those with data on longevity looking for selective effects. Not surprisingly, they could hardly find any effects of alleged selection except for a few disease-related genetic variants that correlated with human longevity. In summarizing their lack of success, the authors state, “We only found a few individual genetic variants, almost all of which were identified in previous studies.1
Evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. Tweet: Evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
But what about the data linking some variants with life span, including one odd association between delayed fertility and longevity? The problem with these results is that they provide no evolutionary support for the scientist’s naturalistic presuppositions. In the fundamental definition of evolution, progress is not defined by longevity per se but is based on reproductive success as an indicator of fitness. This was noted by one evolutionary author who summarized the research in the prestigious journal Nature. He says, “This is not, by itself, evidence of evolution at work, and, “In evolutionary terms, having a long life isn’t as important as having a reproductively fruitful one.2
Amazingly, the authors of the paper claim that despite finding nothing new, the study was a complete success and that the absence of data supporting the operation of ever-elusive and yet-to-be-defined selective pressures was actually evidence for evolution! Their contention was that all those destructive mutations must have been somehow removed through “purifying selection.
In reality, there are a variety of serious problems with the conclusions made in this paper. Most importantly, the researchers were analyzing common genetic variants in living, generally healthy humans, so it’s not surprising that very few negative associations with human health were found. Most creationist geneticists maintain that the most common genetic DNA variations were part of the original created variability of Adam and Eve. This is well-supported by original research showing that the distribution of this variability across the world’s population occurred within a biblical timeframe.5,6
Human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process. Tweet: Human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
If the researchers had been analyzing rare genetic variants, they would have uncovered many associations with disease—a fact that is well-known among biomedical geneticists and documented in a variety of research papers.5,6 These rare variants are evidence of harmful mutations that have occurred in the human genome since the original creation and are commonly associated with an overall loss of information and genome deterioration over time. The human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process referred to as genetic entropy as documented by Cornell University geneticist John Sanford.7
Massive Genetic Study Purporting Human Evolution Debunked | The Institute for Creation Research
You proposed the Science part of this conversation, and yet, ignore Science.
Like it or not, the Bible is not Science.
Humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins. The expression or activity patterns of genes differ across species in ways that help explain each species' distinct biology and behavior.
DNA factors that contribute to the differences were described on Nov. 6 at the American Society of Human Genetics 2012 meeting in a presentation by Yoav Gilad, Ph.D., associate professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Gilad reported that up to 40% of the differences in the expression or activity patterns of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine whether and how a gene's recipe for a protein is transcribed to the RNA molecule that carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.
...
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-11-humans-ch ... e.html#jCp
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Massive Genetic Study Purporting Human Evolution Debunked
The recent publication of a research paper evoked such headlines as “Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving.1,2 Despite the improvement of health-care technology, many other studies indicate that chronic disease among humans is increasing worldwide—and that mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement.3,4 A closer analysis of this new study shows that its evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. This is exactly what modern biomedical data shows and the Bible indicates is happening due to the effects of the Fall where the whole creation is subject to corruption.
Mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. Tweet: Mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
Even from a purely naturalistic perspective, studying alleged human evolution is notoriously difficult. Unlike animals, humans create highly complex cultures and distinctive societal systems, including sophisticated health care programs that treat disease and improve and extend life. Secondly, the study of human health and disease is highly complicated with nearly all traits being controlled and affected by numerous genes and various types of regulatory DNA sequences in the genome. Sorting out the contributions of each individual DNA feature to a particular disease or health-related outcome can be extremely difficult.
In the highly theoretical study of human evolution, scientists postulate that mystical and mostly undefinable selective pressures operate to somehow mold the genome over time leading to upward improvement and change. It’s claimed that the effects of these selective processes can be statistically detected when analyzing large genetic data sets.
In this recent study, scientists analyzed large biomedical and genetic datasets of common human DNA variants in the United Kingdom, including those with data on longevity looking for selective effects. Not surprisingly, they could hardly find any effects of alleged selection except for a few disease-related genetic variants that correlated with human longevity. In summarizing their lack of success, the authors state, “We only found a few individual genetic variants, almost all of which were identified in previous studies.1
Evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. Tweet: Evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
But what about the data linking some variants with life span, including one odd association between delayed fertility and longevity? The problem with these results is that they provide no evolutionary support for the scientist’s naturalistic presuppositions. In the fundamental definition of evolution, progress is not defined by longevity per se but is based on reproductive success as an indicator of fitness. This was noted by one evolutionary author who summarized the research in the prestigious journal Nature. He says, “This is not, by itself, evidence of evolution at work, and, “In evolutionary terms, having a long life isn’t as important as having a reproductively fruitful one.2
Amazingly, the authors of the paper claim that despite finding nothing new, the study was a complete success and that the absence of data supporting the operation of ever-elusive and yet-to-be-defined selective pressures was actually evidence for evolution! Their contention was that all those destructive mutations must have been somehow removed through “purifying selection.
In reality, there are a variety of serious problems with the conclusions made in this paper. Most importantly, the researchers were analyzing common genetic variants in living, generally healthy humans, so it’s not surprising that very few negative associations with human health were found. Most creationist geneticists maintain that the most common genetic DNA variations were part of the original created variability of Adam and Eve. This is well-supported by original research showing that the distribution of this variability across the world’s population occurred within a biblical timeframe.5,6
Human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process. Tweet: Human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
If the researchers had been analyzing rare genetic variants, they would have uncovered many associations with disease—a fact that is well-known among biomedical geneticists and documented in a variety of research papers.5,6 These rare variants are evidence of harmful mutations that have occurred in the human genome since the original creation and are commonly associated with an overall loss of information and genome deterioration over time. The human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process referred to as genetic entropy as documented by Cornell University geneticist John Sanford.7
Massive Genetic Study Purporting Human Evolution Debunked | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515898 wrote: When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
Remember, Adam and Eve lived over 900 years, as did many of their children before the Flood. We are told of three sons, but how many children could a couple have in 900 years? Brothers and sisters married at that time.
Microevolution is a word invented by Creationists, trying to get out of admitting that there is evidence of the existence of Evolution. It is not a Scientific term.
When you see a ticking clock you see the second hand jump from second to second. That is not a genuine representation of time, as the transition between the seconds is, in reality, smooth. With patience you can see the minute hand move slowly. With sufficient patience you can even see the hour hand move. But what if the clock were to include day, week, month, year, decade, century, millenia hands, etc., would you be able to see the hands move? Of course not, but is that evidence that they don't exist.
The reason that there are no modern human fossils is because humans, in their current form, haven't been in existence long enough to have undergone the fossilisation process.
If the word of the Bible were true about the Flood, even if men managed to find their way to higher ground, they would still have perished, and whether it be after 1 day or 40 days, that doesn't make much difference in the fossilisation process. And what about all the others who would have had boats? Were there no fishermen in those days? Was there no international merchant shipping? Furthermore, according to Walt Brown, there were no mountains before the Flood - therefore no high ground to escape to, as he claims that the mountains were formed by the fracturing of the earth's surface. More contradictions.
Remember, Adam and Eve lived over 900 years, as did many of their children before the Flood. We are told of three sons, but how many children could a couple have in 900 years? Brothers and sisters married at that time.
Microevolution is a word invented by Creationists, trying to get out of admitting that there is evidence of the existence of Evolution. It is not a Scientific term.
When you see a ticking clock you see the second hand jump from second to second. That is not a genuine representation of time, as the transition between the seconds is, in reality, smooth. With patience you can see the minute hand move slowly. With sufficient patience you can even see the hour hand move. But what if the clock were to include day, week, month, year, decade, century, millenia hands, etc., would you be able to see the hands move? Of course not, but is that evidence that they don't exist.
The reason that there are no modern human fossils is because humans, in their current form, haven't been in existence long enough to have undergone the fossilisation process.
If the word of the Bible were true about the Flood, even if men managed to find their way to higher ground, they would still have perished, and whether it be after 1 day or 40 days, that doesn't make much difference in the fossilisation process. And what about all the others who would have had boats? Were there no fishermen in those days? Was there no international merchant shipping? Furthermore, according to Walt Brown, there were no mountains before the Flood - therefore no high ground to escape to, as he claims that the mountains were formed by the fracturing of the earth's surface. More contradictions.
Science Disproves Evolution
"Adam and Eve lived over 500 years" That is pure wishful thinking. Nonsense
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515923 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Massive Genetic Study Purporting Human Evolution Debunked
The recent publication of a research paper evoked such headlines as “Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving.1,2 Despite the improvement of health-care technology, many other studies indicate that chronic disease among humans is increasing worldwide—and that mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement.3,4 A closer analysis of this new study shows that its evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. This is exactly what modern biomedical data shows and the Bible indicates is happening due to the effects of the Fall where the whole creation is subject to corruption.
Mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. Tweet: Mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
Even from a purely naturalistic perspective, studying alleged human evolution is notoriously difficult. Unlike animals, humans create highly complex cultures and distinctive societal systems, including sophisticated health care programs that treat disease and improve and extend life. Secondly, the study of human health and disease is highly complicated with nearly all traits being controlled and affected by numerous genes and various types of regulatory DNA sequences in the genome. Sorting out the contributions of each individual DNA feature to a particular disease or health-related outcome can be extremely difficult.
In the highly theoretical study of human evolution, scientists postulate that mystical and mostly undefinable selective pressures operate to somehow mold the genome over time leading to upward improvement and change. It’s claimed that the effects of these selective processes can be statistically detected when analyzing large genetic data sets.
In this recent study, scientists analyzed large biomedical and genetic datasets of common human DNA variants in the United Kingdom, including those with data on longevity looking for selective effects. Not surprisingly, they could hardly find any effects of alleged selection except for a few disease-related genetic variants that correlated with human longevity. In summarizing their lack of success, the authors state, “We only found a few individual genetic variants, almost all of which were identified in previous studies.1
Evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. Tweet: Evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
But what about the data linking some variants with life span, including one odd association between delayed fertility and longevity? The problem with these results is that they provide no evolutionary support for the scientist’s naturalistic presuppositions. In the fundamental definition of evolution, progress is not defined by longevity per se but is based on reproductive success as an indicator of fitness. This was noted by one evolutionary author who summarized the research in the prestigious journal Nature. He says, “This is not, by itself, evidence of evolution at work, and, “In evolutionary terms, having a long life isn’t as important as having a reproductively fruitful one.2
Amazingly, the authors of the paper claim that despite finding nothing new, the study was a complete success and that the absence of data supporting the operation of ever-elusive and yet-to-be-defined selective pressures was actually evidence for evolution! Their contention was that all those destructive mutations must have been somehow removed through “purifying selection.
In reality, there are a variety of serious problems with the conclusions made in this paper. Most importantly, the researchers were analyzing common genetic variants in living, generally healthy humans, so it’s not surprising that very few negative associations with human health were found. Most creationist geneticists maintain that the most common genetic DNA variations were part of the original created variability of Adam and Eve. This is well-supported by original research showing that the distribution of this variability across the world’s population occurred within a biblical timeframe.5,6
Human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process. Tweet: Human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
If the researchers had been analyzing rare genetic variants, they would have uncovered many associations with disease—a fact that is well-known among biomedical geneticists and documented in a variety of research papers.5,6 These rare variants are evidence of harmful mutations that have occurred in the human genome since the original creation and are commonly associated with an overall loss of information and genome deterioration over time. The human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process referred to as genetic entropy as documented by Cornell University geneticist John Sanford.7
Massive Genetic Study Purporting Human Evolution Debunked | The Institute for Creation Research
Sorry but ICR is hardly a reputable source for scientific documentation.
Creationists do not really grasp the point of Evolution.
It is not a process that improves anything. It is simply a process caused by changes in the genetic code of living organisms.
Massive Genetic Study Purporting Human Evolution Debunked
The recent publication of a research paper evoked such headlines as “Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving.1,2 Despite the improvement of health-care technology, many other studies indicate that chronic disease among humans is increasing worldwide—and that mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement.3,4 A closer analysis of this new study shows that its evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. This is exactly what modern biomedical data shows and the Bible indicates is happening due to the effects of the Fall where the whole creation is subject to corruption.
Mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. Tweet: Mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
Even from a purely naturalistic perspective, studying alleged human evolution is notoriously difficult. Unlike animals, humans create highly complex cultures and distinctive societal systems, including sophisticated health care programs that treat disease and improve and extend life. Secondly, the study of human health and disease is highly complicated with nearly all traits being controlled and affected by numerous genes and various types of regulatory DNA sequences in the genome. Sorting out the contributions of each individual DNA feature to a particular disease or health-related outcome can be extremely difficult.
In the highly theoretical study of human evolution, scientists postulate that mystical and mostly undefinable selective pressures operate to somehow mold the genome over time leading to upward improvement and change. It’s claimed that the effects of these selective processes can be statistically detected when analyzing large genetic data sets.
In this recent study, scientists analyzed large biomedical and genetic datasets of common human DNA variants in the United Kingdom, including those with data on longevity looking for selective effects. Not surprisingly, they could hardly find any effects of alleged selection except for a few disease-related genetic variants that correlated with human longevity. In summarizing their lack of success, the authors state, “We only found a few individual genetic variants, almost all of which were identified in previous studies.1
Evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. Tweet: Evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
But what about the data linking some variants with life span, including one odd association between delayed fertility and longevity? The problem with these results is that they provide no evolutionary support for the scientist’s naturalistic presuppositions. In the fundamental definition of evolution, progress is not defined by longevity per se but is based on reproductive success as an indicator of fitness. This was noted by one evolutionary author who summarized the research in the prestigious journal Nature. He says, “This is not, by itself, evidence of evolution at work, and, “In evolutionary terms, having a long life isn’t as important as having a reproductively fruitful one.2
Amazingly, the authors of the paper claim that despite finding nothing new, the study was a complete success and that the absence of data supporting the operation of ever-elusive and yet-to-be-defined selective pressures was actually evidence for evolution! Their contention was that all those destructive mutations must have been somehow removed through “purifying selection.
In reality, there are a variety of serious problems with the conclusions made in this paper. Most importantly, the researchers were analyzing common genetic variants in living, generally healthy humans, so it’s not surprising that very few negative associations with human health were found. Most creationist geneticists maintain that the most common genetic DNA variations were part of the original created variability of Adam and Eve. This is well-supported by original research showing that the distribution of this variability across the world’s population occurred within a biblical timeframe.5,6
Human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process. Tweet: Human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process. https://www.icr.org/article/10243/ @icrscience
If the researchers had been analyzing rare genetic variants, they would have uncovered many associations with disease—a fact that is well-known among biomedical geneticists and documented in a variety of research papers.5,6 These rare variants are evidence of harmful mutations that have occurred in the human genome since the original creation and are commonly associated with an overall loss of information and genome deterioration over time. The human genome is not evolving and improving over time, but instead is in a devolving process referred to as genetic entropy as documented by Cornell University geneticist John Sanford.7
Massive Genetic Study Purporting Human Evolution Debunked | The Institute for Creation Research
Sorry but ICR is hardly a reputable source for scientific documentation.
Creationists do not really grasp the point of Evolution.
It is not a process that improves anything. It is simply a process caused by changes in the genetic code of living organisms.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515903 wrote: According to evolution they have been in existence for several million years. For example:
Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Therein lies the point behind Evolution. Just at which point of the Evolutionary timescale does the first lifelorm which can be truly classed as 'Human' actually appear. Due to the multitude of transitionary species along the way it's not until about 2million years ago that Humans that were recognisable as such began to appear.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... evolution/
If Creationism were true, then all of these species would suddenly have appeared at once & would be equally scattered at the same level along the Geological Ladder. However, they are not. They are to be found at precisely the same levels as we would expect to see them at.
Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Therein lies the point behind Evolution. Just at which point of the Evolutionary timescale does the first lifelorm which can be truly classed as 'Human' actually appear. Due to the multitude of transitionary species along the way it's not until about 2million years ago that Humans that were recognisable as such began to appear.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... evolution/
If Creationism were true, then all of these species would suddenly have appeared at once & would be equally scattered at the same level along the Geological Ladder. However, they are not. They are to be found at precisely the same levels as we would expect to see them at.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1515924 wrote: Microevolution is a word invented by Creationists, trying to get out of admitting that there is evidence of the existence of Evolution. It is not a Scientific term.
Where is that evidence?
When you see a ticking clock you see the second hand jump from second to second. That is not a genuine representation of time, as the transition between the seconds is, in reality, smooth. With patience you can see the minute hand move slowly. With sufficient patience you can even see the hour hand move. But what if the clock were to include day, week, month, year, decade, century, millenia hands, etc., would you be able to see the hands move? Of course not, but is that evidence that they don't exist.
The reason that there are no modern human fossils is because humans, in their current form, haven't been in existence long enough to have undergone the fossilisation process.
Evolutionists claim humans have been around for millions of years. Even if that figure was one million, there should have been trillions of human fossils. Where are they?
If the word of the Bible were true about the Flood, even if men managed to find their way to higher ground, they would still have perished, and whether it be after 1 day or 40 days, that doesn't make much difference in the fossilisation process.
In order to be fossilized, there has to be burial. In the higher Flood waters there would not have been ample mud for burial.
And what about all the others who would have had boats? Were there no fishermen in those days? Was there no international merchant shipping? Furthermore, according to Walt Brown, there were no mountains before the Flood - therefore no high ground to escape to, as he claims that the mountains were formed by the fracturing of the earth's surface. More contradictions.
The contradictions only exist in your mind. Apparently there were small mountains before the Flood. Nothing like we see today with the Alps, Rockies, etc. As for the Flood, consider this:
Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence
When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.
Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures
Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals
We find extensive fossil “graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.
Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard
Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.
Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers
Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances
We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.
Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country
Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata
We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.
Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion
Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession
Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.
Focus in: Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
What now?
The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ. But just reading the evidence isn’t enough. The message of salvation founded in the Bible's history is also true, and, God wants us to accept the gift of salvation He freely offers us.
The evidence is real. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and in His creation (Romans 1:20).
How will you respond?
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -evidence/
Where is that evidence?
When you see a ticking clock you see the second hand jump from second to second. That is not a genuine representation of time, as the transition between the seconds is, in reality, smooth. With patience you can see the minute hand move slowly. With sufficient patience you can even see the hour hand move. But what if the clock were to include day, week, month, year, decade, century, millenia hands, etc., would you be able to see the hands move? Of course not, but is that evidence that they don't exist.
The reason that there are no modern human fossils is because humans, in their current form, haven't been in existence long enough to have undergone the fossilisation process.
Evolutionists claim humans have been around for millions of years. Even if that figure was one million, there should have been trillions of human fossils. Where are they?
If the word of the Bible were true about the Flood, even if men managed to find their way to higher ground, they would still have perished, and whether it be after 1 day or 40 days, that doesn't make much difference in the fossilisation process.
In order to be fossilized, there has to be burial. In the higher Flood waters there would not have been ample mud for burial.
And what about all the others who would have had boats? Were there no fishermen in those days? Was there no international merchant shipping? Furthermore, according to Walt Brown, there were no mountains before the Flood - therefore no high ground to escape to, as he claims that the mountains were formed by the fracturing of the earth's surface. More contradictions.
The contradictions only exist in your mind. Apparently there were small mountains before the Flood. Nothing like we see today with the Alps, Rockies, etc. As for the Flood, consider this:
Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence
When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.
Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures
Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals
We find extensive fossil “graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.
Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard
Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.
Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers
Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances
We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.
Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country
Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata
We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.
Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion
Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession
Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.
Focus in: Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
What now?
The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ. But just reading the evidence isn’t enough. The message of salvation founded in the Bible's history is also true, and, God wants us to accept the gift of salvation He freely offers us.
The evidence is real. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and in His creation (Romans 1:20).
How will you respond?
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -evidence/
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1515925 wrote: "Adam and Eve lived over 500 years" That is pure wishful thinking. Nonsense
No, it is fact found in the Biblical record.
No, it is fact found in the Biblical record.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Thaat is what happens when you take the Bible literally: absurdities.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515926 wrote: Sorry but ICR is hardly a reputable source for scientific documentation.
Creationists do not really grasp the point of Evolution.
It is not a process that improves anything. It is simply a process caused by changes in the genetic code of living organisms.
ICR is more reputable than most pagan documents. Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale
Ever since Darwin the fossil record has been an embarrassment to evolutionists. The predictions concerning what evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record have failed miserably. Not only have they failed to find the many tens of thousands of undoubted transitional forms that are demanded by evolutionary theory, but the number of arguable, let alone demonstrable, transitional forms that have been suggested are few indeed. This has placed evolutionists in a most difficult situation, made even more embarrassing by the fact that the fossil record is remarkably in accord with predictions based on special creation.
Darwin and, for about the first century following Darwin, the Darwinists pleaded the poverty of the fossil record. The claim was made that the transitional forms, or "missing links," as the term became known popularly were really there somewhere but had not yet been found. It was also claimed that many of the links were missing either because conditions had failed to result in their fossilization or that they had been eroded away and destroyed subsequent to fossilization. These arguments have now fallen into disfavor among many Darwinian geologists. An intense search spanning 120 years has produced an immensely rich fossil record but has failed to produce the expected transitional forms, and many geologists now realize the impossibility that a combination of geological processes would have miraculously eliminated all the billions of transitional forms while leaving billions of fossils of the terminal forms intact.
How desperate the situation really is was betrayed by Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt and others over 40 years ago when they proposed what they themselves called the "hopeful monster" mechanism, which in its most extreme form, as put forth by Schindewolf and Goldschmidt, resulted in the suggestion that the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.1 They suggested that the major evolutionary advances have taken place in single large steps. They believed that these drastic changes were caused by systemic mutations which affected early embryonic stages, with automatic reconstruction of all later phases in the development of the effected organism. This suggestion was met with open derision by neo-Darwinists (proponents of slow, gradual change). The idea has received support recently, however, from Stephen J. Gould, one of the main spokesmen for evolutionists in the U.S. today. In his 1977 article, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters, "2 Gould not only admits that the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, but he also asks the question (asked by creationists ever since Darwin), of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? For these reasons Gould suggested that eventually Goldschmidt would be largely vindicated.
The hopeful monster mechanism is, however, contrary to the science of genetics, as has been suggested by some of its opponents,3 and furthermore, as Goldschmidt himself admitted, no one has ever seen anything like this happen. Commenting on this idea, Sewall Wright has pointed out that he has recorded 100,000 newborn guinea pigs and has seen many hundreds of monsters of diverse sorts, but none were even remotely "hopeful," all having died shortly after birth or before.4
Now gaining popularity is a less drastic suggestion by Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley, and others, dubbed the "punctuated equilibrium" mechanism. They have suggested that little or nothing happens in the life of a species for perhaps several million years (the period of stasis, or equilibrium), and then suddenly out on the periphery of the geographical area of the species a few individuals become isolated and undergo rapid evolution to a new species (the punctuation). The new species then proliferates into a large population which once again persists with little change. This produces a fossil record with no transitional forms between species because the transition occurs rapidly in small populations.
This notion is merely a new scenario but certainly does not provide a mechanism. Left unexplained is how or why such rapid changes occur. Such rapid changes are in fact contrary to what we know about genetics. Furthermore, this notion does not solve the problem of the missing links. This suggestion is only an attempt to explain the absence of transitional forms between species. That is not the serious problem—the real problem is the big gaps between the higher categories, the systematic absence of transitional forms between families, orders, classes and phyla. These gaps, for example, include those between invertebrates and fishes and between fish and amphibian gaps of 100 and 30 million years or so, respectively, on the evolutionary time scale. The idea of punctuated equilibrium makes no pretense of addressing this problem, let alone providing a solution.
Many evolutionists, not content to explain away the gaps in the fossil record, still persist in hopes of finding missing links. This results in a never-ending series of claims concerning the discovery of transitional forms, sometimes sensational. These claims, with passage of time, generally are discredited by further research, although many persist in textbooks long after they are discredited, since once error gets in it is hard to get out.
Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.
News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."5
But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science.6 The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).
This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.
The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.
The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter.7 The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West,8 and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.
Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked.9 We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.10
Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale | The Institute for Creation Research
Creationists do not really grasp the point of Evolution.
It is not a process that improves anything. It is simply a process caused by changes in the genetic code of living organisms.
ICR is more reputable than most pagan documents. Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale
Ever since Darwin the fossil record has been an embarrassment to evolutionists. The predictions concerning what evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record have failed miserably. Not only have they failed to find the many tens of thousands of undoubted transitional forms that are demanded by evolutionary theory, but the number of arguable, let alone demonstrable, transitional forms that have been suggested are few indeed. This has placed evolutionists in a most difficult situation, made even more embarrassing by the fact that the fossil record is remarkably in accord with predictions based on special creation.
Darwin and, for about the first century following Darwin, the Darwinists pleaded the poverty of the fossil record. The claim was made that the transitional forms, or "missing links," as the term became known popularly were really there somewhere but had not yet been found. It was also claimed that many of the links were missing either because conditions had failed to result in their fossilization or that they had been eroded away and destroyed subsequent to fossilization. These arguments have now fallen into disfavor among many Darwinian geologists. An intense search spanning 120 years has produced an immensely rich fossil record but has failed to produce the expected transitional forms, and many geologists now realize the impossibility that a combination of geological processes would have miraculously eliminated all the billions of transitional forms while leaving billions of fossils of the terminal forms intact.
How desperate the situation really is was betrayed by Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt and others over 40 years ago when they proposed what they themselves called the "hopeful monster" mechanism, which in its most extreme form, as put forth by Schindewolf and Goldschmidt, resulted in the suggestion that the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.1 They suggested that the major evolutionary advances have taken place in single large steps. They believed that these drastic changes were caused by systemic mutations which affected early embryonic stages, with automatic reconstruction of all later phases in the development of the effected organism. This suggestion was met with open derision by neo-Darwinists (proponents of slow, gradual change). The idea has received support recently, however, from Stephen J. Gould, one of the main spokesmen for evolutionists in the U.S. today. In his 1977 article, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters, "2 Gould not only admits that the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, but he also asks the question (asked by creationists ever since Darwin), of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? For these reasons Gould suggested that eventually Goldschmidt would be largely vindicated.
The hopeful monster mechanism is, however, contrary to the science of genetics, as has been suggested by some of its opponents,3 and furthermore, as Goldschmidt himself admitted, no one has ever seen anything like this happen. Commenting on this idea, Sewall Wright has pointed out that he has recorded 100,000 newborn guinea pigs and has seen many hundreds of monsters of diverse sorts, but none were even remotely "hopeful," all having died shortly after birth or before.4
Now gaining popularity is a less drastic suggestion by Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley, and others, dubbed the "punctuated equilibrium" mechanism. They have suggested that little or nothing happens in the life of a species for perhaps several million years (the period of stasis, or equilibrium), and then suddenly out on the periphery of the geographical area of the species a few individuals become isolated and undergo rapid evolution to a new species (the punctuation). The new species then proliferates into a large population which once again persists with little change. This produces a fossil record with no transitional forms between species because the transition occurs rapidly in small populations.
This notion is merely a new scenario but certainly does not provide a mechanism. Left unexplained is how or why such rapid changes occur. Such rapid changes are in fact contrary to what we know about genetics. Furthermore, this notion does not solve the problem of the missing links. This suggestion is only an attempt to explain the absence of transitional forms between species. That is not the serious problem—the real problem is the big gaps between the higher categories, the systematic absence of transitional forms between families, orders, classes and phyla. These gaps, for example, include those between invertebrates and fishes and between fish and amphibian gaps of 100 and 30 million years or so, respectively, on the evolutionary time scale. The idea of punctuated equilibrium makes no pretense of addressing this problem, let alone providing a solution.
Many evolutionists, not content to explain away the gaps in the fossil record, still persist in hopes of finding missing links. This results in a never-ending series of claims concerning the discovery of transitional forms, sometimes sensational. These claims, with passage of time, generally are discredited by further research, although many persist in textbooks long after they are discredited, since once error gets in it is hard to get out.
Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.
News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."5
But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science.6 The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).
This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.
The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.
The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter.7 The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West,8 and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.
Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked.9 We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.10
Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1515928 wrote: Therein lies the point behind Evolution. Just at which point of the Evolutionary timescale does the first lifelorm which can be truly classed as 'Human' actually appear. Due to the multitude of transitionary species along the way it's not until about 2million years ago that Humans that were recognisable as such began to appear.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... evolution/
So where are the trillions of fossils that should have appeared in those two million years?
If Creationism were true, then all of these species would suddenly have appeared at once & would be equally scattered at the same level along the Geological Ladder. However, they are not. They are to be found at precisely the same levels as we would expect to see them at.
Which would be expected during a worldwide Flood that distributed plants and animals. The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Origin of Mankind
Children lined up row upon row, mouths open, and eyes agog, as they look up at a museum's hairy half-man, club in hand, and listen to their group leader repeat:
Four million years ago, a few ape-like animals began to walk upright, taking the first faltering steps toward becoming human beings. Time, chance, and the struggle for survival continued shaping us. As Carl Sagan put it: "Only through the deaths of an immense number of slightly maladapted organisms are we, brains and all, here today."1
Along the way, social groups became the key to survival, and the human family evolved as the pleasure of sex was offered in return for food and protection. 2 Now we are capable of directing our own further evolution, but to avoid extinction we must understand our animal origins and instincts. Truly, evolution is the science of human survival.
So goes the lecture, often replete with compounded speculation and sexually explicit detail, and always with the subliminal soft-sell, "science is salvation." Our children are told this "old, old story" over and over again in children's science magazines, high school science textbooks, Saturday morning TV cartoons, talk shows, news specials and documentaries, and, of course, in museum after museum. Sometimes they hear the words "perhaps" or "theory" or "may have been," but the whole thrust of constant repetition by "experts in the field" could not have been designed any better to overwhelm our young people into believing that "evolution is a fact, like apples falling out of trees." 3
But what are the facts? Tragically, the facts are virtually inaccessible to most students. Museums rarely point out which parts of their displays are real and which are reconstructions and artistic imagination. Textbooks, encyclopedias, and scientific journal articles, the normal sources of student information, rarely report the facts admitted by an international conference of leading evolutionists, namely that the missing links between man and apes, like the supposed links between other plant and animal groups, are still missing (see ref. 3). In fact, it is really only in creationist works that students can get a scientifically critical look at the so-called "facts" behind evolutionist museum displays and textbook pictures of our supposed "family tree." 4
Now, thanks to two new displays, ICR's Museum of Creation and Earth History gives students and other visitors a close look at the facts regarding the origin of mankind. One display features life-size replicas of famous fossil skulls, and the second includes film and casts of dinosaur and man-like tracks from the Paluxy River in Texas. Students are encouraged to put their science process skills into action, and to examine all the relevant features and facets of each specimen. The "facts" evolutionists cite are included, but so are points missing from ordinary, evolution-only display. Consider the following as examples.
Neanderthals were once pictured by evolutionists as "beetle-browed, barrel-chested, bow-legged brutes," a link between apes and man. It is now possible to diagnose the several bone diseases common among Neanderthals, and we now know that creationists were right all along on this point: Neanderthals were just people—fully human. 4
Unfortunately, Neanderthals have not been the only people once considered subhuman by evolutionist authorities. Dr. Downs named his well-known syndrome "Mongoloid idiocy" because he thought children born with this condition (an extra 21st chromosome) were "throwbacks" to the "Mongolian stage" in human evolution. 5 Even sadder, Henry Fairfield Osborn once argued that "unbiased" scientists would classify "mankind" into several distinct species, if not different genera. Thus, he wrote, "The standard of intelligence of the average adult ***** [who evolutionist Osborn placed in a distinct subhuman species] is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens."6 These ideas, rejected by evolutionists today, were, nevertheless, the "facts of evolution" in Osborn's time, and are crucial to understanding world events of the 1930's and 1940's.
Piltdown. Almost everyone now knows that Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax. But for over 40 years, from 1912 until the 1950's, the subtle message of scientific authority was clear: "You can believe in creation if you want to, but the facts are all on the side of evolution." The facts in this case turned out to be an ape's jaw with its teeth filed and a human skull, both stained to make them look older.
At least Piltdown answers one often-asked question: "Can virtually all scientists be wrong about such an important matter as human origins?" The answer, most emphatically, is: "Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time." Over 500 doctoral dissertations were done on Piltdown, yet all this intense scientific scrutiny failed to expose the fake.
Students may rightly wonder what today's "facts of evolution" will turn out to be in another 40 years.
Too Much From Teeth? One of our museum displays shows what happened when people were too eager to interpret meager data. All scientists, whether creationist or evolutionist, are embarrassed by Hesperopithecus haroldcookii ("Nebraska Man"), reconstructed flesh, hair, and family, from a single tooth. Touted as another "fact of evolution" at the time of the Scopes trial, "Nebraska Man" turned out to be just the tooth of an extinct pig.
Evolutionists today are much more cautious about such zealous over-extrapolation. Yet it was not until 1979 that Ramapithecus—"reconstructed as a biped on the basis of teeth and jaws alone"—was written off as a "false start of the human parade."7 Even now Aegyptopithecus is being pictured as mankind's "psychological ancestor" (what Elwyn Simons called "a nasty little thing") on the basis of highly imaginative "behavioral analysis" of the canine teeth of the males. 8
"Lucy" and the Australopithecines. Current speculation about human ancestry centers around a group of fossils called australopithecines, especially a specimen called "Lucy." 9 Students visiting ICR's Museum see a picture of Lucy's skeleton, plus a full-scale reconstruction of a skull.
Next to this gracile australopithecine skull, however, the student also sees a life-size model of a chimpanzee skull. The similarities are striking. In fact, the similarities between gracile australopithecines and chimpanzees are so striking that "modern chimpanzees. by this definition [Richard Leakey's] would be classified as A. africanus [australopithecines]."10 Lucy's discoverer, Donald Johanson, made that statement about Leakey's definition, and he goes on to say that Lucy is even more "primitive" (i.e. more ape-like) than Leakey's australopithecines. Perhaps the most logical inference from our observations—certainly one students should be allowed to consider—is that Lucy and her kin are simply varieties of apes, and nothing more.
An evolutionist might object, "But here is the crucial difference: Lucy walked upright, and that makes her the evolutionary ancestor of man." But let's make sure our students hear both sides of that story, too. First, as leading evolutionary anthropologists point out, the living rain forest chimpanzee spends a lot of time walking upright," so that feature alone makes Lucy only man-like or chimp-like—and all her other features argue for chimp-like.
Secondly, we have evidence that people walked upright before Lucy was fossilized—the Kanapoi hominid, Castenedolo Man, perhaps even the Laetoli footprints discovered by Mary Leakey, and most especially the man-like tracks preserved with those of dinosaurs in the rocky bottom of the Paluxy River in Texas. 12 The ICR Museum's superb new Paluxy display (donated by Paul and Marian Taylor) features film of the research in progress, and casts of the manlike tracks that young people can try on for size. If people walked upright before Lucy was fossilized, then of course she could not have been our ancestor.
But did Lucy really walk upright anyway?" ¦ anatomical features in some of these fossils provide a warning against a too-ready acceptance this story," says anatomist Charles Oxnard in a published address to biology teachers. 13 On the basis of multi-variate analysis, an objective computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships, Oxnard reaches two conclusions. His scientific conclusion: the evidence is clear that the australopithecines did not walk upright, at least not in the human manner. Then, to the assembled teachers, he expressed his educational conclusion: "Be critical." We must teach our students to be critical, to examine the facts that lie behind popular theories, to explore alternate theories, and to test ideas and assumptions against the evidence at hand.
It is impossible for students to think critically about origins, however, if they are only presented with evolution in some form as the only idea acceptable in science. Teachers with no special interest in creation realize that presenting only evolutionary ideas is neither good science nor good education and it must make students wonder how science can be called an open-ended search for truth. An increasing number of teachers, parents, and especially students are realizing that true academic freedom must involve not only the freedom to discuss how, but also whether, evolution occurred—and, even more importantly, the freedom to discuss its one and only logical alternative, the scientific concept of creation.
No scientist has trouble distinguishing the kind of order in objects shaped by time and chance (e.g., a tumbled pebble) and those created with plan and purpose (e.g. an arrowhead). According to creation scientists, the evidence of anatomy physiology, and genetics enables us to recognize human beings and apes as separately created kinds. The fossils found so far indicate that apes and human beings existed as separate kinds with large but limited variability in the past as they do today. On the basis of such evidence, many scientists are now developing and defending creation as a scientific model, well able to compete with evolution in the marketplace of ideas.
We know that acceptance of either view strongly affects the way a person lives. But let's lay aside our personal preferences for the moment and simply ask: which concept better fits the facts—evolution or creation? "The good ole American fair play system is to show 'em both sides and let 'em make up their own minds." That simple and fair-minded view was expressed by Wayne Moyer during a televisions interview with Richard Threlkeld.14 That is the approach we are trying to take in the "two model" section of ICR's Museum of Creation and Earth History: " ¦ show people both sides and let them make up their own minds."
Paradoxically, Moyer does not believe the rules of fair play can be applied to the creation/evolution question. Why? "It's like mixing apples and oranges; you're working from two sets of assumptions." That is the "official position" of the anti-creationists, but it simply cannot be true. First, nothing is more crucial to good science and good education than the ability to compare critically two sets of assumptions. Our students do it in social studies, they do it in literature, they do it in real life—why not in science, where comparing fact and assumption ought to be the backbone of the open-ended scientific approach to problem solving Second, when it comes to the scientific aspects of origins, any open-minded individual and all scientists—creationist, evolutionist, or undecided—work from the same assumption: respect for logic and observation and the time-tested procedures of science.
Surely we can all benefit from full and free discussion of this basic question: What is the most logical inference from our observations of human fossils: creation, or evolution? Certainly our students deserve the freedom to choose, and the freedom to look at all the data needed to make an intelligent choice.
Origin of Mankind | The Institute for Creation Research
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... evolution/
So where are the trillions of fossils that should have appeared in those two million years?
If Creationism were true, then all of these species would suddenly have appeared at once & would be equally scattered at the same level along the Geological Ladder. However, they are not. They are to be found at precisely the same levels as we would expect to see them at.
Which would be expected during a worldwide Flood that distributed plants and animals. The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Origin of Mankind
Children lined up row upon row, mouths open, and eyes agog, as they look up at a museum's hairy half-man, club in hand, and listen to their group leader repeat:
Four million years ago, a few ape-like animals began to walk upright, taking the first faltering steps toward becoming human beings. Time, chance, and the struggle for survival continued shaping us. As Carl Sagan put it: "Only through the deaths of an immense number of slightly maladapted organisms are we, brains and all, here today."1
Along the way, social groups became the key to survival, and the human family evolved as the pleasure of sex was offered in return for food and protection. 2 Now we are capable of directing our own further evolution, but to avoid extinction we must understand our animal origins and instincts. Truly, evolution is the science of human survival.
So goes the lecture, often replete with compounded speculation and sexually explicit detail, and always with the subliminal soft-sell, "science is salvation." Our children are told this "old, old story" over and over again in children's science magazines, high school science textbooks, Saturday morning TV cartoons, talk shows, news specials and documentaries, and, of course, in museum after museum. Sometimes they hear the words "perhaps" or "theory" or "may have been," but the whole thrust of constant repetition by "experts in the field" could not have been designed any better to overwhelm our young people into believing that "evolution is a fact, like apples falling out of trees." 3
But what are the facts? Tragically, the facts are virtually inaccessible to most students. Museums rarely point out which parts of their displays are real and which are reconstructions and artistic imagination. Textbooks, encyclopedias, and scientific journal articles, the normal sources of student information, rarely report the facts admitted by an international conference of leading evolutionists, namely that the missing links between man and apes, like the supposed links between other plant and animal groups, are still missing (see ref. 3). In fact, it is really only in creationist works that students can get a scientifically critical look at the so-called "facts" behind evolutionist museum displays and textbook pictures of our supposed "family tree." 4
Now, thanks to two new displays, ICR's Museum of Creation and Earth History gives students and other visitors a close look at the facts regarding the origin of mankind. One display features life-size replicas of famous fossil skulls, and the second includes film and casts of dinosaur and man-like tracks from the Paluxy River in Texas. Students are encouraged to put their science process skills into action, and to examine all the relevant features and facets of each specimen. The "facts" evolutionists cite are included, but so are points missing from ordinary, evolution-only display. Consider the following as examples.
Neanderthals were once pictured by evolutionists as "beetle-browed, barrel-chested, bow-legged brutes," a link between apes and man. It is now possible to diagnose the several bone diseases common among Neanderthals, and we now know that creationists were right all along on this point: Neanderthals were just people—fully human. 4
Unfortunately, Neanderthals have not been the only people once considered subhuman by evolutionist authorities. Dr. Downs named his well-known syndrome "Mongoloid idiocy" because he thought children born with this condition (an extra 21st chromosome) were "throwbacks" to the "Mongolian stage" in human evolution. 5 Even sadder, Henry Fairfield Osborn once argued that "unbiased" scientists would classify "mankind" into several distinct species, if not different genera. Thus, he wrote, "The standard of intelligence of the average adult ***** [who evolutionist Osborn placed in a distinct subhuman species] is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens."6 These ideas, rejected by evolutionists today, were, nevertheless, the "facts of evolution" in Osborn's time, and are crucial to understanding world events of the 1930's and 1940's.
Piltdown. Almost everyone now knows that Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax. But for over 40 years, from 1912 until the 1950's, the subtle message of scientific authority was clear: "You can believe in creation if you want to, but the facts are all on the side of evolution." The facts in this case turned out to be an ape's jaw with its teeth filed and a human skull, both stained to make them look older.
At least Piltdown answers one often-asked question: "Can virtually all scientists be wrong about such an important matter as human origins?" The answer, most emphatically, is: "Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time." Over 500 doctoral dissertations were done on Piltdown, yet all this intense scientific scrutiny failed to expose the fake.
Students may rightly wonder what today's "facts of evolution" will turn out to be in another 40 years.
Too Much From Teeth? One of our museum displays shows what happened when people were too eager to interpret meager data. All scientists, whether creationist or evolutionist, are embarrassed by Hesperopithecus haroldcookii ("Nebraska Man"), reconstructed flesh, hair, and family, from a single tooth. Touted as another "fact of evolution" at the time of the Scopes trial, "Nebraska Man" turned out to be just the tooth of an extinct pig.
Evolutionists today are much more cautious about such zealous over-extrapolation. Yet it was not until 1979 that Ramapithecus—"reconstructed as a biped on the basis of teeth and jaws alone"—was written off as a "false start of the human parade."7 Even now Aegyptopithecus is being pictured as mankind's "psychological ancestor" (what Elwyn Simons called "a nasty little thing") on the basis of highly imaginative "behavioral analysis" of the canine teeth of the males. 8
"Lucy" and the Australopithecines. Current speculation about human ancestry centers around a group of fossils called australopithecines, especially a specimen called "Lucy." 9 Students visiting ICR's Museum see a picture of Lucy's skeleton, plus a full-scale reconstruction of a skull.
Next to this gracile australopithecine skull, however, the student also sees a life-size model of a chimpanzee skull. The similarities are striking. In fact, the similarities between gracile australopithecines and chimpanzees are so striking that "modern chimpanzees. by this definition [Richard Leakey's] would be classified as A. africanus [australopithecines]."10 Lucy's discoverer, Donald Johanson, made that statement about Leakey's definition, and he goes on to say that Lucy is even more "primitive" (i.e. more ape-like) than Leakey's australopithecines. Perhaps the most logical inference from our observations—certainly one students should be allowed to consider—is that Lucy and her kin are simply varieties of apes, and nothing more.
An evolutionist might object, "But here is the crucial difference: Lucy walked upright, and that makes her the evolutionary ancestor of man." But let's make sure our students hear both sides of that story, too. First, as leading evolutionary anthropologists point out, the living rain forest chimpanzee spends a lot of time walking upright," so that feature alone makes Lucy only man-like or chimp-like—and all her other features argue for chimp-like.
Secondly, we have evidence that people walked upright before Lucy was fossilized—the Kanapoi hominid, Castenedolo Man, perhaps even the Laetoli footprints discovered by Mary Leakey, and most especially the man-like tracks preserved with those of dinosaurs in the rocky bottom of the Paluxy River in Texas. 12 The ICR Museum's superb new Paluxy display (donated by Paul and Marian Taylor) features film of the research in progress, and casts of the manlike tracks that young people can try on for size. If people walked upright before Lucy was fossilized, then of course she could not have been our ancestor.
But did Lucy really walk upright anyway?" ¦ anatomical features in some of these fossils provide a warning against a too-ready acceptance this story," says anatomist Charles Oxnard in a published address to biology teachers. 13 On the basis of multi-variate analysis, an objective computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships, Oxnard reaches two conclusions. His scientific conclusion: the evidence is clear that the australopithecines did not walk upright, at least not in the human manner. Then, to the assembled teachers, he expressed his educational conclusion: "Be critical." We must teach our students to be critical, to examine the facts that lie behind popular theories, to explore alternate theories, and to test ideas and assumptions against the evidence at hand.
It is impossible for students to think critically about origins, however, if they are only presented with evolution in some form as the only idea acceptable in science. Teachers with no special interest in creation realize that presenting only evolutionary ideas is neither good science nor good education and it must make students wonder how science can be called an open-ended search for truth. An increasing number of teachers, parents, and especially students are realizing that true academic freedom must involve not only the freedom to discuss how, but also whether, evolution occurred—and, even more importantly, the freedom to discuss its one and only logical alternative, the scientific concept of creation.
No scientist has trouble distinguishing the kind of order in objects shaped by time and chance (e.g., a tumbled pebble) and those created with plan and purpose (e.g. an arrowhead). According to creation scientists, the evidence of anatomy physiology, and genetics enables us to recognize human beings and apes as separately created kinds. The fossils found so far indicate that apes and human beings existed as separate kinds with large but limited variability in the past as they do today. On the basis of such evidence, many scientists are now developing and defending creation as a scientific model, well able to compete with evolution in the marketplace of ideas.
We know that acceptance of either view strongly affects the way a person lives. But let's lay aside our personal preferences for the moment and simply ask: which concept better fits the facts—evolution or creation? "The good ole American fair play system is to show 'em both sides and let 'em make up their own minds." That simple and fair-minded view was expressed by Wayne Moyer during a televisions interview with Richard Threlkeld.14 That is the approach we are trying to take in the "two model" section of ICR's Museum of Creation and Earth History: " ¦ show people both sides and let them make up their own minds."
Paradoxically, Moyer does not believe the rules of fair play can be applied to the creation/evolution question. Why? "It's like mixing apples and oranges; you're working from two sets of assumptions." That is the "official position" of the anti-creationists, but it simply cannot be true. First, nothing is more crucial to good science and good education than the ability to compare critically two sets of assumptions. Our students do it in social studies, they do it in literature, they do it in real life—why not in science, where comparing fact and assumption ought to be the backbone of the open-ended scientific approach to problem solving Second, when it comes to the scientific aspects of origins, any open-minded individual and all scientists—creationist, evolutionist, or undecided—work from the same assumption: respect for logic and observation and the time-tested procedures of science.
Surely we can all benefit from full and free discussion of this basic question: What is the most logical inference from our observations of human fossils: creation, or evolution? Certainly our students deserve the freedom to choose, and the freedom to look at all the data needed to make an intelligent choice.
Origin of Mankind | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1515982 wrote: Thaat is what happens when you take the Bible literally: absurdities.
Why is taking the Word of God literally absurd?
Why is taking the Word of God literally absurd?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515988 wrote: Why is taking the Word of God literally absurd?
Because God never meant for the Bible to be taken Literally
Because God never meant for the Bible to be taken Literally
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1515989 wrote: Because God never meant for the Bible to be taken Literally
Why do you believe that?
Why do you believe that?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515984 wrote: ICR is more reputable than most pagan documents. Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.
1. Paganism is extremely reputable & is remarkably accurate. It has always predicted & catalogued astral calendars just as accurately as modern day science - but then, I doubt you actually have any idea what Paganism actually is.
2. If you had the foggiest idea about what the disciplines of Science are you would know that Science neither proves nor disproves anything. If, as you say it proves or disproves anything, then state IN YOUR OWN WORDS, without any interminal nonsensical pastings, exactly how you come to this conclusion, citing any examples. If yuo are able to do this, then you will have revolutionised the entire concept of Science as we know it. The very nature of Science is that it constantly challenges itself. If something supports a theory, then that is all it does. It supports the theory. It doesn't prove it to be the case, as it always accepts there may be another explanation. If something shows a theory to be flawed then the theory is revised & amended. All the evidence gathered over continues to support Evolution. There have been occasions where misinterpretations have been shown & the theory has been modified accordingly. Even before the discovery of DNA predictions had been made of what would be found from DNA analysis, most of which have leter been confirmed to be true.
1. Paganism is extremely reputable & is remarkably accurate. It has always predicted & catalogued astral calendars just as accurately as modern day science - but then, I doubt you actually have any idea what Paganism actually is.
2. If you had the foggiest idea about what the disciplines of Science are you would know that Science neither proves nor disproves anything. If, as you say it proves or disproves anything, then state IN YOUR OWN WORDS, without any interminal nonsensical pastings, exactly how you come to this conclusion, citing any examples. If yuo are able to do this, then you will have revolutionised the entire concept of Science as we know it. The very nature of Science is that it constantly challenges itself. If something supports a theory, then that is all it does. It supports the theory. It doesn't prove it to be the case, as it always accepts there may be another explanation. If something shows a theory to be flawed then the theory is revised & amended. All the evidence gathered over continues to support Evolution. There have been occasions where misinterpretations have been shown & the theory has been modified accordingly. Even before the discovery of DNA predictions had been made of what would be found from DNA analysis, most of which have leter been confirmed to be true.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1515990 wrote: Why do you believe that?
Actually, Billy Graham told me.
Actually, Billy Graham told me.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
I believe it for a few reasons: Spoke with a Jewish scholar on the issue, other scholars at the Vancouver School of Theology, Scholarly books I have read/ My own thinking and learning translation in both Greek and Hebrew. I forgot to add some 60 years of study..
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1516004 wrote: 1. Paganism is extremely reputable & is remarkably accurate. It has always predicted & catalogued astral calendars just as accurately as modern day science - but then, I doubt you actually have any idea what Paganism actually is.
2. If you had the foggiest idea about what the disciplines of Science are you would know that Science neither proves nor disproves anything. If, as you say it proves or disproves anything, then state IN YOUR OWN WORDS, without any interminal nonsensical pastings, exactly how you come to this conclusion, citing any examples. If yuo are able to do this, then you will have revolutionised the entire concept of Science as we know it. The very nature of Science is that it constantly challenges itself. If something supports a theory, then that is all it does. It supports the theory. It doesn't prove it to be the case, as it always accepts there may be another explanation. If something shows a theory to be flawed then the theory is revised & amended. All the evidence gathered over continues to support Evolution. There have been occasions where misinterpretations have been shown & the theory has been modified accordingly. Even before the discovery of DNA predictions had been made of what would be found from DNA analysis, most of which have leter been confirmed to be true.
Since science proved the earth is round, hasn't it disproved it is flat? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Revolutionary Evolutionism
An intriguing development in recent evolutionary thought has been the growing repudiation of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy (that is, the idea of slow and gradual evolution, accomplished by the mechanism of small random genetic mutations preserved by natural selection) in favor of the idea of rapid evolution caused by rapid environmental changes. Instead of arguing solely against evolutionary uniformitarianism, the creationist is now having to argue also against catastrophic evolutionism!
In recent years, creationists have delivered telling blows against Darwinian paleontology by repeatedly citing the ubiquitous absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection.¦ The inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.1
Similarly, creationists have argued effectively against uniformitarianism by pointing out the widespread evidence of catastrophism in the ad" rocks and fossil beds of the geological column.
In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophism: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.2
So, all of a sudden, many—perhaps most—evolutionary biologists are no longer claiming that natural selection was a major factor in the development of basic categories of plants and animals. Many leading evolutionary paleontologists are aggressively proclaiming the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, and many evolutionary geologists are advocating a return to catastrophism in the study of the rocks! What creationists have been vigorously contending against heated denials, evolutionists now cheerfully admit to have been true all along!
Does this mean they are all becoming creationists? No, of course not. Some, such as Pierre Grassé,3 have simply stated that they have no idea how evolution could have occurred, even though they still believe in it. In the hands of others, however, evolutionism is a remarkably plastic philosophy. The model merely has to be changed to accommodate rapid evolution, instead of slow and gradual evolution. The reign of Huxley, Simpson, Mayr, Stebbins, and Dobzhansky has passed and we enter the age of Lewontin, Gould, Ager, and others of the newer school. Long live evolution!
Probably the leading proponent of the new model is the young Harvard paleontologist and philosopher of science, Stephen Jay Gould. A brilliant writer, he has produced a stream of books and articles on many subjects in recent years and has all but demolished both traditional geological uniformitarianism and orthodox neo-Darwinism. The following statements are typical Gouldisms:
Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and Lyell were not the heroes of true science.¦ Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.4 All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.5
Gould and his former Harvard colleague, Niles Eldredge (now at the American Museum of Natural History), have developed what they call their theory of "punctuated equilibrium," according to which large populations of organisms are normally genetically stable for a long time, except for occasional "punctuations." These are relatively short periods of time during which inbreeding within small "founder" populations, with rapid environmental changes, stimulates rapid evolutionary change.
There can obviously be little experimental evidence for such a theory, but its critics grudgingly acknowledge its popularity.
The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists.¦ The model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground. Paleontologists seem to be enthralled by small populations.¦ I hasten to point out that ecologists and geneticists have not elucidated macroevolutionary patterns: the gap has not been bridged from either side.6
Another prolific young geologist in Gould's camp has shown that the paleontological data, traditionally interpreted in terms of increasing adaptation and natural selection over the ages, can be organized just as well in terms of pure chance assemblages of fossils:
If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see, or 9 percent, or 0.9 percent.7 The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic.8
The term "stochastic" means essentially "random" and Raup and his colleagues have shown by computer simulations that the fossil patterns throughout the so-called geologic ages can be attributed to random variations and extinctions, without the need of natural selection, at least not in terms of a gradual step-by-step improvement. Ricklefs emphasizes this aspect of the record:
Indeed, the success of Monte Carlo simulations of evolutionary patterns and R.H. MacArthur's "broken-stick" model of the relative abundances of species point out the similarities between natural patterns and randomly generated systems. It is not clear that an understanding of deterministic processes and both internally and externally imposed constraints will necessarily elucidate macroevolution.9
The explosive evolutionary "punctuations" which do occur from time to time in the postulated small populations are believed by Ager and others to be associated somehow with geological catastrophism. Derek Ager is past president of the British Geological Association and believes neither in the Bible nor in creationism. However, he has shown that all geologic features must be explained in terms of catastrophism, rather than uniformitarianism, and he maintains that this ties in with the fossil gaps stressed by Gould and Eldredge.
The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.10
In other words, the history of any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror.11
Ager and other modern geologic catastrophists do not, of course, believe in the worldwide Flood of the Bible, but rather that intermittent regional catastrophes throughout the geological ages account for all the actual formations and structures in the geologic column.
But the idea that the marvelous array of intricately complex and highly adapted organisms in the world could have developed rapidly from simpler organisms in catastrophically changing environments is contrary to all experience and reason. Simple systems never evolve naturally into complex systems. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, changes go in exactly the opposite direction; complex systems always tend to degenerate into simple systems. Furthermore, catastrophic environments merely accelerate the decay of such systems. By the standard thermodynamics of heat flow, for example, an influx of heat energy into an open system will increase the entropy of that system more rapidly than if it were an isolated system. How, then, is it even conceivable that evolution could proceed by any such mechanism as this?
As a matter of fact, however, Ilya Prigogine, who received a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, has made just such a proposal, based on his analyses. That is, he has developed a mathematical theory for what he calls "dissipative structures" in fluids, in which a high flow of energy through an open system (with consequent high energy dissipation) somehow generates a higher degree of order in that system, even in the midst of an over-all increase of entropy. This suggestion has been eagerly appropriated by evolutionists, since it seems to give them a slight ray of hope that the Second Law of Thermodynamics may not preclude evolution after all. However, Prigogine himself has acknowledged that his actual data had no direct confirmation from living systems at all, so that his ideas on the origin of life and on evolution in general, are mere speculations at this time.
Prigogine's theory is couched in highly mathematical terminology and is difficult to follow in detail. Qualitatively, however, he speaks of "order through fluctuations" in systems "far from equilibrium," systems in which unusually chaotic conditions somehow may result in structures of higher order in small portions of those systems. (For a brief rebuttal of Prigogine's theories as a basis for evolution, see "Impact" articles 57 and 58, in Acts and Facts for March and April, 1978).
This theme occurs with increasing frequency in many diverse fields today. Richard Lewontin, leading population geneticist at Harvard, has rejected the Darwinist concept of struggle and survival, even at the genetic level,12 and M.I.T.'s Noam Chomsky, recognized as the world's foremost linguist, stresses that there is no evolutionary transition between the noises of animals and the speech of humans.13 The current concept of evolution at all levels (human and nonhuman) is, typically, one of large stable populations in which recombination and adaptation normally operate in an egalitarian milieu punctuated at rare intervals in small select groups by rapid evolution to a higher order, probably through large random mutations stimulated by catastrophically changing environments.
The amazing aspect of this emerging consensus is that it is not based on any direct scientific evidence, but only on lack of evidence! Since there are no intermediate forms, the reasoning goes, evolution must occur rapidly. All systems tend to become disordered, so higher order must somehow arise out of the chaos of a more rapidly disintegrating system! Where, pray tell, have all the scientists gone?
The answer may be that they have gone into politics! Russian-born Ilya Prigogine, for example, now at the University of Texas and the University of Brussels, has made a remarkable leap of faith with his dissipative structure equations and he and his followers are seeking to apply them to problems of social change.
Prigogine's work has long been of interest to systems theorists seeking to apply the logic of their fields to global problems. One such scientist is Ervin Laszlo of the United Nations. "What I see Prigogine doing," says Laszlo, "is giving legitimization to the process of evolution—self-organization under conditions of change.¦ Its analogy to social systems and evolution could be very fruitful.14
Beyond its direct scientific application, Dr. Prigogine's work seems to him to imply a physical principle never fully perceived before—a fundamental impetus inexorably pushing life and humanity to further evolution and complexity, for better or worse, perhaps even against man's will.15
Even more overtly political is the Harvard-M.I.T. group whose spokesmen seem to be Gould and Lewontin.
If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature, then we should consider alternative philosophies of change to enlarge our realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet Union, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change—the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational.¦ Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that more Russian paleontologists support a model very similar to our punctuated equilibria. The connection cannot be accidental.16
Well, he said so himself! Gould is a self-proclaimed Marxist, as are Lewontin and Chomsky, so it is not overly surprising that their concepts of what might be called "revolutionary evolution" coincide with the Marxian dialectic and with Soviet "philosophies of change."
Tom Bethel, of Harper's magazine, has written a penetrating analysis of these remarkable recent shifts in evolutionary philosophy.
No longer is unrestrained competition, once perceived as beneficial to business production and animal production alike, considered acceptable. We now live in a time when lip service, at least, is paid to notions of collective effort and collective security. One can see why Darwinism would upset the Left.¦ Evolution was nature's eugenics program. How do you think our Marxist biologists like that idea? They don't like it at all.17
It is interesting that these current criticisms of Darwinism are essentially the same that creationists have been making for years and which evolutionists have, until recently, denied. When the racist, connotations of neo-Darwinism, for example, were pointed out by creationists,18 evolutionists became indignant, but now their own colleagues are making the same charge.
These younger evolutionists are even claiming that Darwin himself, as well as the other nineteenth century evolutionists, were politically motivated and were merely forcing their science to support their racial and economic prejudices. They are now doing the same thing themselves, of course, except that their own prejudices are tied to Karl Marx instead of Adam Smith. The remarkable feature of all this is that, despite all the bitterness with which the two evolutionary camps oppose each other, they are perfectly united in their devotion to evolutionary materialism and their opposition to creationism!
The left-wing critique of Darwinism theory has by no means prevailed, but if it should do so, let us also enjoy the fantastic irony that the fundamentalists, who have been trying for more than a hundred years to knock Darwin off his pedestal, without success, will be indebted not to the right-wingers, with whom they have always been aligned, but to biologists whose god is Marx.19
And speaking of irony, please note the quandary faced by evolutionists. The evidences continually cited by creationists have finally been acknowledged and "uniformitarian evolutionism" is being abandoned. The only remaining alternative to creationism is "revolutionary evolutionism," with its magical apparatus of hopeful monsters, big bangs, black holes, dissipative structures, punctuational catastrophes and Marxian dialectic: "Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat" ("Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.")
Revolutionary Evolutionism | The Institute for Creation Research
2. If you had the foggiest idea about what the disciplines of Science are you would know that Science neither proves nor disproves anything. If, as you say it proves or disproves anything, then state IN YOUR OWN WORDS, without any interminal nonsensical pastings, exactly how you come to this conclusion, citing any examples. If yuo are able to do this, then you will have revolutionised the entire concept of Science as we know it. The very nature of Science is that it constantly challenges itself. If something supports a theory, then that is all it does. It supports the theory. It doesn't prove it to be the case, as it always accepts there may be another explanation. If something shows a theory to be flawed then the theory is revised & amended. All the evidence gathered over continues to support Evolution. There have been occasions where misinterpretations have been shown & the theory has been modified accordingly. Even before the discovery of DNA predictions had been made of what would be found from DNA analysis, most of which have leter been confirmed to be true.
Since science proved the earth is round, hasn't it disproved it is flat? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Revolutionary Evolutionism
An intriguing development in recent evolutionary thought has been the growing repudiation of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy (that is, the idea of slow and gradual evolution, accomplished by the mechanism of small random genetic mutations preserved by natural selection) in favor of the idea of rapid evolution caused by rapid environmental changes. Instead of arguing solely against evolutionary uniformitarianism, the creationist is now having to argue also against catastrophic evolutionism!
In recent years, creationists have delivered telling blows against Darwinian paleontology by repeatedly citing the ubiquitous absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection.¦ The inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.1
Similarly, creationists have argued effectively against uniformitarianism by pointing out the widespread evidence of catastrophism in the ad" rocks and fossil beds of the geological column.
In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophism: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.2
So, all of a sudden, many—perhaps most—evolutionary biologists are no longer claiming that natural selection was a major factor in the development of basic categories of plants and animals. Many leading evolutionary paleontologists are aggressively proclaiming the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, and many evolutionary geologists are advocating a return to catastrophism in the study of the rocks! What creationists have been vigorously contending against heated denials, evolutionists now cheerfully admit to have been true all along!
Does this mean they are all becoming creationists? No, of course not. Some, such as Pierre Grassé,3 have simply stated that they have no idea how evolution could have occurred, even though they still believe in it. In the hands of others, however, evolutionism is a remarkably plastic philosophy. The model merely has to be changed to accommodate rapid evolution, instead of slow and gradual evolution. The reign of Huxley, Simpson, Mayr, Stebbins, and Dobzhansky has passed and we enter the age of Lewontin, Gould, Ager, and others of the newer school. Long live evolution!
Probably the leading proponent of the new model is the young Harvard paleontologist and philosopher of science, Stephen Jay Gould. A brilliant writer, he has produced a stream of books and articles on many subjects in recent years and has all but demolished both traditional geological uniformitarianism and orthodox neo-Darwinism. The following statements are typical Gouldisms:
Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and Lyell were not the heroes of true science.¦ Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.4 All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.5
Gould and his former Harvard colleague, Niles Eldredge (now at the American Museum of Natural History), have developed what they call their theory of "punctuated equilibrium," according to which large populations of organisms are normally genetically stable for a long time, except for occasional "punctuations." These are relatively short periods of time during which inbreeding within small "founder" populations, with rapid environmental changes, stimulates rapid evolutionary change.
There can obviously be little experimental evidence for such a theory, but its critics grudgingly acknowledge its popularity.
The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists.¦ The model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground. Paleontologists seem to be enthralled by small populations.¦ I hasten to point out that ecologists and geneticists have not elucidated macroevolutionary patterns: the gap has not been bridged from either side.6
Another prolific young geologist in Gould's camp has shown that the paleontological data, traditionally interpreted in terms of increasing adaptation and natural selection over the ages, can be organized just as well in terms of pure chance assemblages of fossils:
If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see, or 9 percent, or 0.9 percent.7 The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic.8
The term "stochastic" means essentially "random" and Raup and his colleagues have shown by computer simulations that the fossil patterns throughout the so-called geologic ages can be attributed to random variations and extinctions, without the need of natural selection, at least not in terms of a gradual step-by-step improvement. Ricklefs emphasizes this aspect of the record:
Indeed, the success of Monte Carlo simulations of evolutionary patterns and R.H. MacArthur's "broken-stick" model of the relative abundances of species point out the similarities between natural patterns and randomly generated systems. It is not clear that an understanding of deterministic processes and both internally and externally imposed constraints will necessarily elucidate macroevolution.9
The explosive evolutionary "punctuations" which do occur from time to time in the postulated small populations are believed by Ager and others to be associated somehow with geological catastrophism. Derek Ager is past president of the British Geological Association and believes neither in the Bible nor in creationism. However, he has shown that all geologic features must be explained in terms of catastrophism, rather than uniformitarianism, and he maintains that this ties in with the fossil gaps stressed by Gould and Eldredge.
The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.10
In other words, the history of any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror.11
Ager and other modern geologic catastrophists do not, of course, believe in the worldwide Flood of the Bible, but rather that intermittent regional catastrophes throughout the geological ages account for all the actual formations and structures in the geologic column.
But the idea that the marvelous array of intricately complex and highly adapted organisms in the world could have developed rapidly from simpler organisms in catastrophically changing environments is contrary to all experience and reason. Simple systems never evolve naturally into complex systems. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, changes go in exactly the opposite direction; complex systems always tend to degenerate into simple systems. Furthermore, catastrophic environments merely accelerate the decay of such systems. By the standard thermodynamics of heat flow, for example, an influx of heat energy into an open system will increase the entropy of that system more rapidly than if it were an isolated system. How, then, is it even conceivable that evolution could proceed by any such mechanism as this?
As a matter of fact, however, Ilya Prigogine, who received a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, has made just such a proposal, based on his analyses. That is, he has developed a mathematical theory for what he calls "dissipative structures" in fluids, in which a high flow of energy through an open system (with consequent high energy dissipation) somehow generates a higher degree of order in that system, even in the midst of an over-all increase of entropy. This suggestion has been eagerly appropriated by evolutionists, since it seems to give them a slight ray of hope that the Second Law of Thermodynamics may not preclude evolution after all. However, Prigogine himself has acknowledged that his actual data had no direct confirmation from living systems at all, so that his ideas on the origin of life and on evolution in general, are mere speculations at this time.
Prigogine's theory is couched in highly mathematical terminology and is difficult to follow in detail. Qualitatively, however, he speaks of "order through fluctuations" in systems "far from equilibrium," systems in which unusually chaotic conditions somehow may result in structures of higher order in small portions of those systems. (For a brief rebuttal of Prigogine's theories as a basis for evolution, see "Impact" articles 57 and 58, in Acts and Facts for March and April, 1978).
This theme occurs with increasing frequency in many diverse fields today. Richard Lewontin, leading population geneticist at Harvard, has rejected the Darwinist concept of struggle and survival, even at the genetic level,12 and M.I.T.'s Noam Chomsky, recognized as the world's foremost linguist, stresses that there is no evolutionary transition between the noises of animals and the speech of humans.13 The current concept of evolution at all levels (human and nonhuman) is, typically, one of large stable populations in which recombination and adaptation normally operate in an egalitarian milieu punctuated at rare intervals in small select groups by rapid evolution to a higher order, probably through large random mutations stimulated by catastrophically changing environments.
The amazing aspect of this emerging consensus is that it is not based on any direct scientific evidence, but only on lack of evidence! Since there are no intermediate forms, the reasoning goes, evolution must occur rapidly. All systems tend to become disordered, so higher order must somehow arise out of the chaos of a more rapidly disintegrating system! Where, pray tell, have all the scientists gone?
The answer may be that they have gone into politics! Russian-born Ilya Prigogine, for example, now at the University of Texas and the University of Brussels, has made a remarkable leap of faith with his dissipative structure equations and he and his followers are seeking to apply them to problems of social change.
Prigogine's work has long been of interest to systems theorists seeking to apply the logic of their fields to global problems. One such scientist is Ervin Laszlo of the United Nations. "What I see Prigogine doing," says Laszlo, "is giving legitimization to the process of evolution—self-organization under conditions of change.¦ Its analogy to social systems and evolution could be very fruitful.14
Beyond its direct scientific application, Dr. Prigogine's work seems to him to imply a physical principle never fully perceived before—a fundamental impetus inexorably pushing life and humanity to further evolution and complexity, for better or worse, perhaps even against man's will.15
Even more overtly political is the Harvard-M.I.T. group whose spokesmen seem to be Gould and Lewontin.
If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature, then we should consider alternative philosophies of change to enlarge our realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet Union, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change—the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational.¦ Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that more Russian paleontologists support a model very similar to our punctuated equilibria. The connection cannot be accidental.16
Well, he said so himself! Gould is a self-proclaimed Marxist, as are Lewontin and Chomsky, so it is not overly surprising that their concepts of what might be called "revolutionary evolution" coincide with the Marxian dialectic and with Soviet "philosophies of change."
Tom Bethel, of Harper's magazine, has written a penetrating analysis of these remarkable recent shifts in evolutionary philosophy.
No longer is unrestrained competition, once perceived as beneficial to business production and animal production alike, considered acceptable. We now live in a time when lip service, at least, is paid to notions of collective effort and collective security. One can see why Darwinism would upset the Left.¦ Evolution was nature's eugenics program. How do you think our Marxist biologists like that idea? They don't like it at all.17
It is interesting that these current criticisms of Darwinism are essentially the same that creationists have been making for years and which evolutionists have, until recently, denied. When the racist, connotations of neo-Darwinism, for example, were pointed out by creationists,18 evolutionists became indignant, but now their own colleagues are making the same charge.
These younger evolutionists are even claiming that Darwin himself, as well as the other nineteenth century evolutionists, were politically motivated and were merely forcing their science to support their racial and economic prejudices. They are now doing the same thing themselves, of course, except that their own prejudices are tied to Karl Marx instead of Adam Smith. The remarkable feature of all this is that, despite all the bitterness with which the two evolutionary camps oppose each other, they are perfectly united in their devotion to evolutionary materialism and their opposition to creationism!
The left-wing critique of Darwinism theory has by no means prevailed, but if it should do so, let us also enjoy the fantastic irony that the fundamentalists, who have been trying for more than a hundred years to knock Darwin off his pedestal, without success, will be indebted not to the right-wingers, with whom they have always been aligned, but to biologists whose god is Marx.19
And speaking of irony, please note the quandary faced by evolutionists. The evidences continually cited by creationists have finally been acknowledged and "uniformitarian evolutionism" is being abandoned. The only remaining alternative to creationism is "revolutionary evolutionism," with its magical apparatus of hopeful monsters, big bangs, black holes, dissipative structures, punctuational catastrophes and Marxian dialectic: "Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat" ("Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.")
Revolutionary Evolutionism | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ape-Men? 4
The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions (m) and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo) (n).
The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes (o).
m. Donald C. Johanson et al., “New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205–209.
n. “We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus [Homo]. Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, “The Human Genus, Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999, p. 65.
o. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis technique. A computer simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. To my knowledge, this technique has not been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as “Lucy.
“...the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white. Zuckerman, p. 78.
“Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ... Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973 to 1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones, The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.
Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt? Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389–395.
“For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable. Zuckerman, p. 93.
“His Lordship’s [Sir Solly Zuckerman’s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes,’ he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa. Lewin, Bones of Contention, pp. 164–165.
“This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes. Richard E. F. Leakey, “Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya, Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1516040 wrote: Since science proved the earth is round, hasn't it disproved it is flat? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
The shape of the earth is generally a known factor - except to that other group of Creationists - the Flat Earth Society. The fact that we have seen it to be so is merely additional supportive evidence, but the fact that the Flat Earth Society exists is evidence that you still have the Religious nuts who deny the evidence.
There are masses of evidence supporting Evolution. There are none to suggest Creationism. Even when digitised the evidence uses up millions of Terrabytes. What evidence does Creationism have? An old book, written by ignorant men based on Superstition, translated over & over again, thousands of times over by those who would have control over their subjects.
The shape of the earth is generally a known factor - except to that other group of Creationists - the Flat Earth Society. The fact that we have seen it to be so is merely additional supportive evidence, but the fact that the Flat Earth Society exists is evidence that you still have the Religious nuts who deny the evidence.
There are masses of evidence supporting Evolution. There are none to suggest Creationism. Even when digitised the evidence uses up millions of Terrabytes. What evidence does Creationism have? An old book, written by ignorant men based on Superstition, translated over & over again, thousands of times over by those who would have control over their subjects.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1516394 wrote: The shape of the earth is generally a known factor - except to that other group of Creationists - the Flat Earth Society. The fact that we have seen it to be so is merely additional supportive evidence, but the fact that the Flat Earth Society exists is evidence that you still have the Religious nuts who deny the evidence.
Why do you believe the nuts are religious?
There are masses of evidence supporting Evolution.
Where is that evidence? The fact is it does not exist because evolution does not exist.
There are none to suggest Creationism. Even when digitised the evidence uses up millions of Terrabytes. What evidence does Creationism have?
Creation! Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
An old book, written by ignorant men based on Superstition, translated over & over again, thousands of times over by those who would have control over their subjects.
That proves the Bible was inspired by God. All those writers who knew nothing were able to reveal scientific facts that have just recently been discovered including the fact the earth is round. Also they accurately predicted the future. All those translations are accurate reproductions of Scripture in different languages. Here are the facts:
BIBLE ACCURACY
There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content.
I. The Bibliographic Test
A. The Quantity of Manuscripts
In the case of the Old Testament, there are a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel's turbulent history. Also, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century A.D., and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures).
The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20.
B. The Quality of Manuscripts
Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed.
As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style.
While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism.
C. The Time Span of Manuscripts
Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated at A.D. 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them.
The time span of the New Testament manuscripts is exceptional. The manuscripts written on papyrus came from the second and third centuries A.D. The John Rylands Fragment (P52) of the Gospel of John is dated at A.D. 117-38, only a few decades after the Gospel was written. The Bodmer Papyri are dated from A.D. 175-225, and the Chester Beatty Papyri date from about A.D. 250. The time span for most of the New Testament is less than 200 years (and some books are within 100 years) from the date of authorship to the date of our earliest manuscripts. This can be sharply contrasted with the average gap of over 1,000 years between the composition and the earliest copy of the writings of other ancient authors.
To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents.
II. The Internal Test
The second test of the reliability of the biblical documents asks, What claims does the Bible make about itself? This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like we are using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But we are really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored.
A number of biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, the bulk of the Bible was written by people who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, “And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe (John 19:35; see 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of life . . . what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also (1 John 1:1, 3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty (2 Peter 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Peter 5:1).
The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by people who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by form criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between A.D. 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke's two-part masterpiece (see his prologue in Luke 1:1-4).
III. The External Test
Because the Scriptures continually refer to historical events, they are verifiable; their accuracy can be checked by external evidence. The chronological details in the prologue to Jeremiah (1:1-3) and in Luke 3:1-2 illustrate this. Ezekiel 1:2 allows us to date Ezekiel's first vision of God to the day (July 31, 592 B.C.).
The historicity of Jesus Christ is well-established by early Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources, and these extra biblical writings affirm the major details of the New Testament portrait of the Lord. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made specific references to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James in his Antiquities of the Jews. In this work, Josephus gives us many background details about the Herods, the Sadducees and Pharisees, the high priests like Annas and Caiaphas, and the Roman emperors mentioned in the gospels and Acts.
We find another early secular reference to Jesus in a letter written a little after A.D. 73 by an imprisoned Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. This letter to his son compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ. Other first- and second-century writers who mention Christ include the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (Epistles), and the Greek satirist Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). Jesus is also mentioned a number of times in the Jewish Talmud.
The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, etc. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. While we cannot say that archaeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archaeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the 19th century made many damaging claims that would completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the 20th century reversed almost all of these claims. Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as a result of their work.
Out of the multitude of archaeological discoveries related to the Bible, consider a few examples to illustrate the remarkable external substantiation of biblical claims. Excavations at Nuzi (1925-41), Mari (discovered in 1933), and Alalakh (1937-39; 1946-49) provide helpful background information that fits well with the Genesis stories of the patriarchal period. The Nuzi tablets and Mari letters illustrate the patriarchal customs in great detail, and the Ras Shamra tablets discovered in ancient Ugarit in Syria shed much light on Hebrew prose and poetry and Canaanite culture. The Ebla tablets discovered recently in northern Syria also affirm the antiquity and accuracy of the Book of Genesis.
Some scholars once claimed that the Mosaic Law could not have been written by Moses, because writing was largely unknown at that time and because the law code of the Pentateuch was too sophisticated for that period. But the codified Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860 B.C.), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.), and the even earlier Ur-Nammu code have refuted these claims.
http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible
Why do you believe the nuts are religious?
There are masses of evidence supporting Evolution.
Where is that evidence? The fact is it does not exist because evolution does not exist.
There are none to suggest Creationism. Even when digitised the evidence uses up millions of Terrabytes. What evidence does Creationism have?
Creation! Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
An old book, written by ignorant men based on Superstition, translated over & over again, thousands of times over by those who would have control over their subjects.
That proves the Bible was inspired by God. All those writers who knew nothing were able to reveal scientific facts that have just recently been discovered including the fact the earth is round. Also they accurately predicted the future. All those translations are accurate reproductions of Scripture in different languages. Here are the facts:
BIBLE ACCURACY
There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content.
I. The Bibliographic Test
A. The Quantity of Manuscripts
In the case of the Old Testament, there are a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel's turbulent history. Also, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century A.D., and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures).
The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20.
B. The Quality of Manuscripts
Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed.
As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style.
While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism.
C. The Time Span of Manuscripts
Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated at A.D. 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them.
The time span of the New Testament manuscripts is exceptional. The manuscripts written on papyrus came from the second and third centuries A.D. The John Rylands Fragment (P52) of the Gospel of John is dated at A.D. 117-38, only a few decades after the Gospel was written. The Bodmer Papyri are dated from A.D. 175-225, and the Chester Beatty Papyri date from about A.D. 250. The time span for most of the New Testament is less than 200 years (and some books are within 100 years) from the date of authorship to the date of our earliest manuscripts. This can be sharply contrasted with the average gap of over 1,000 years between the composition and the earliest copy of the writings of other ancient authors.
To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents.
II. The Internal Test
The second test of the reliability of the biblical documents asks, What claims does the Bible make about itself? This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like we are using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But we are really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored.
A number of biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, the bulk of the Bible was written by people who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, “And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe (John 19:35; see 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of life . . . what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also (1 John 1:1, 3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty (2 Peter 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Peter 5:1).
The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by people who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by form criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between A.D. 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke's two-part masterpiece (see his prologue in Luke 1:1-4).
III. The External Test
Because the Scriptures continually refer to historical events, they are verifiable; their accuracy can be checked by external evidence. The chronological details in the prologue to Jeremiah (1:1-3) and in Luke 3:1-2 illustrate this. Ezekiel 1:2 allows us to date Ezekiel's first vision of God to the day (July 31, 592 B.C.).
The historicity of Jesus Christ is well-established by early Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources, and these extra biblical writings affirm the major details of the New Testament portrait of the Lord. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made specific references to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James in his Antiquities of the Jews. In this work, Josephus gives us many background details about the Herods, the Sadducees and Pharisees, the high priests like Annas and Caiaphas, and the Roman emperors mentioned in the gospels and Acts.
We find another early secular reference to Jesus in a letter written a little after A.D. 73 by an imprisoned Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. This letter to his son compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ. Other first- and second-century writers who mention Christ include the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (Epistles), and the Greek satirist Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). Jesus is also mentioned a number of times in the Jewish Talmud.
The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, etc. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. While we cannot say that archaeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archaeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the 19th century made many damaging claims that would completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the 20th century reversed almost all of these claims. Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as a result of their work.
Out of the multitude of archaeological discoveries related to the Bible, consider a few examples to illustrate the remarkable external substantiation of biblical claims. Excavations at Nuzi (1925-41), Mari (discovered in 1933), and Alalakh (1937-39; 1946-49) provide helpful background information that fits well with the Genesis stories of the patriarchal period. The Nuzi tablets and Mari letters illustrate the patriarchal customs in great detail, and the Ras Shamra tablets discovered in ancient Ugarit in Syria shed much light on Hebrew prose and poetry and Canaanite culture. The Ebla tablets discovered recently in northern Syria also affirm the antiquity and accuracy of the Book of Genesis.
Some scholars once claimed that the Mosaic Law could not have been written by Moses, because writing was largely unknown at that time and because the law code of the Pentateuch was too sophisticated for that period. But the codified Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860 B.C.), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.), and the even earlier Ur-Nammu code have refuted these claims.
http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ape-Men? 5
Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (p). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (q). Claims were made—based on one partially complete australopithecine fossil, Australopithecus afarensis, (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (r) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (s). In 2006, a more complete Australopithecus afarensis specimen—a 3-year-old baby—was announced. Its new features were clearly apelike (t). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (u).
p. “Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions. Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion, Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]
q. “The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees. Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement, Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.
r. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis, Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.
Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright, New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.
Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279–317.
s. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits, New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.
t. Zeresenay Alemseged et al., “A Juvenile Early Hominin Skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia, Nature, Vol.443, 21*September 2006, pp.296–301.
u. “At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees. Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology, American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.
“The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... ‘One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,’ says Berger. James Shreeve, “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn, Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.
“There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them. Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates, Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.
“We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today. Ibid., pp. 348–349.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1516395 wrote: Why do you believe the nuts are religious?
You are a Nut Job. You are Religious. Point in fact.
Where is that evidence? The fact is it does not exist because evolution does not exist.
I, for one, have presented just a fraction of the evidence time & time again yet each & every time you take the typical Creationist point of view of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes & saying "La, la, la - I can't hear you". If you were to simply Google "Evidence For Evolution" you would be overwhelmed with information & evidence from a multitude of independent sources. However, I doubt if you even know how to use Google, as all your 'evidence' comes from Walt Brown single, discredited book.
Creation! Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
If something happens, regardless of the cause, then it is natural that it happens. Therefore there is no such thing as 'Supernatural', only 'Not Yet Understood'. Inasmuch as this is true you are merely taking the true Scientific Phrase of "I Do Not Know" to be 'proof' of an entirely implausible notion.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Experiments have & continue to be made, repeatedly & verifiably. In fact, Evolution in bacteria is one of the biggest problems facing Medical Science. No sooner is an antibody developed than the bacteria mutates (evolves) into a totally new strain. The only difference is that Creationists have invented the term "Micro-Evolution". The fact is that in Evolution there is no Micro or Macro. Evolution is Binary. It changes or it doesn't. Even Creationists accept that it does change. Evolution refers to imperceptible changes happening over millennia, with each miniscule change gradually culminating in a much larger change. The fossil record shows snapshots of these changes, and the Geological Ladder reveals the snapshots to be in exactly the order that we would expect to see them. On many occasions it has been predicted what would be expected BEFORE the actual discovery, which went on to further support the accuracy of the initial prediction.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
And here we have the Creationist's hallmark of a False Premise - "The Fact That...". Where a quantity is an unknown factor it cannot be referred to as a 'fact'. There is no evidence to suggest one way or the other that the Universe came from nothing. The Physics Theories suggest that there was a culmination of energies which spontaneously reacted, forming Matter & Time as a result. The fact the the Universe is still expanding is something that HAS been proven. It doesn't prove how or why the expansion was initiated. Nobody knows the answer to that, so the last thing you can possibly describe it as is a 'Fact'.
And you were doing so well before you couldn't resist resorting to your usual MO of pasting the usual rubbish all over again.
You are a Nut Job. You are Religious. Point in fact.
Where is that evidence? The fact is it does not exist because evolution does not exist.
I, for one, have presented just a fraction of the evidence time & time again yet each & every time you take the typical Creationist point of view of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes & saying "La, la, la - I can't hear you". If you were to simply Google "Evidence For Evolution" you would be overwhelmed with information & evidence from a multitude of independent sources. However, I doubt if you even know how to use Google, as all your 'evidence' comes from Walt Brown single, discredited book.
Creation! Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
If something happens, regardless of the cause, then it is natural that it happens. Therefore there is no such thing as 'Supernatural', only 'Not Yet Understood'. Inasmuch as this is true you are merely taking the true Scientific Phrase of "I Do Not Know" to be 'proof' of an entirely implausible notion.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Experiments have & continue to be made, repeatedly & verifiably. In fact, Evolution in bacteria is one of the biggest problems facing Medical Science. No sooner is an antibody developed than the bacteria mutates (evolves) into a totally new strain. The only difference is that Creationists have invented the term "Micro-Evolution". The fact is that in Evolution there is no Micro or Macro. Evolution is Binary. It changes or it doesn't. Even Creationists accept that it does change. Evolution refers to imperceptible changes happening over millennia, with each miniscule change gradually culminating in a much larger change. The fossil record shows snapshots of these changes, and the Geological Ladder reveals the snapshots to be in exactly the order that we would expect to see them. On many occasions it has been predicted what would be expected BEFORE the actual discovery, which went on to further support the accuracy of the initial prediction.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
And here we have the Creationist's hallmark of a False Premise - "The Fact That...". Where a quantity is an unknown factor it cannot be referred to as a 'fact'. There is no evidence to suggest one way or the other that the Universe came from nothing. The Physics Theories suggest that there was a culmination of energies which spontaneously reacted, forming Matter & Time as a result. The fact the the Universe is still expanding is something that HAS been proven. It doesn't prove how or why the expansion was initiated. Nobody knows the answer to that, so the last thing you can possibly describe it as is a 'Fact'.
And you were doing so well before you couldn't resist resorting to your usual MO of pasting the usual rubbish all over again.
Science Disproves Evolution
The thing that Pahu seems to miss is this:
Evolution is not really what he is arguing about.
It would be whether it is the process of evolution that explains how Humans arrived on this planet.
We know the process of Evolution explains much of the genetic variations we find among different life forms on Earth.
The Creationists' objection is to the idea that man came from Apes. The obvious answer has been that, no, Man did not come from the Ape. The most logical explanation is that Apes and Humans developed in parallel from some common ancestor.
The tasks for the Creationists is not to disprove anything about Evolution, but to come up with evidence that humans actually arrived on Earth from some other process.
Evolution is not really what he is arguing about.
It would be whether it is the process of evolution that explains how Humans arrived on this planet.
We know the process of Evolution explains much of the genetic variations we find among different life forms on Earth.
The Creationists' objection is to the idea that man came from Apes. The obvious answer has been that, no, Man did not come from the Ape. The most logical explanation is that Apes and Humans developed in parallel from some common ancestor.
The tasks for the Creationists is not to disprove anything about Evolution, but to come up with evidence that humans actually arrived on Earth from some other process.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1516432 wrote: The thing that Pahu seems to miss is this:
Evolution is not really what he is arguing about.
It would be whether it is the process of evolution that explains how Humans arrived on this planet.
We know the process of Evolution explains much of the genetic variations we find among different life forms on Earth.
The Creationists' objection is to the idea that man came from Apes. The obvious answer has been that, no, Man did not come from the Ape. The most logical explanation is that Apes and Humans developed in parallel from some common ancestor.
The tasks for the Creationists is not to disprove anything about Evolution, but to come up with evidence that humans actually arrived on Earth from some other process.
Which is much like the Creationist's Straw Man argument, using lines like, "If Man evolved from Apes, then why are there still Apes"? It merely demonstrates their lack of knowledge of what Evolution is all about. Furthermore, as Pahu repeatedly demonstrates, they just cannot grasp that Evolution has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Creation of the Universe, irrespective of how that came to be.
Evolution is not really what he is arguing about.
It would be whether it is the process of evolution that explains how Humans arrived on this planet.
We know the process of Evolution explains much of the genetic variations we find among different life forms on Earth.
The Creationists' objection is to the idea that man came from Apes. The obvious answer has been that, no, Man did not come from the Ape. The most logical explanation is that Apes and Humans developed in parallel from some common ancestor.
The tasks for the Creationists is not to disprove anything about Evolution, but to come up with evidence that humans actually arrived on Earth from some other process.
Which is much like the Creationist's Straw Man argument, using lines like, "If Man evolved from Apes, then why are there still Apes"? It merely demonstrates their lack of knowledge of what Evolution is all about. Furthermore, as Pahu repeatedly demonstrates, they just cannot grasp that Evolution has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Creation of the Universe, irrespective of how that came to be.
Science Disproves Evolution
Where is that evidence? The fact is it does not exist because evolution does not exist.
FourPart;1516429 wrote:
I, for one, have presented just a fraction of the evidence time & time again yet each & every time you take the typical Creationist point of view of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes & saying "La, la, la - I can't hear you". If you were to simply Google "Evidence For Evolution" you would be overwhelmed with information & evidence from a multitude of independent sources. However, I doubt if you even know how to use Google, as all your 'evidence' comes from Walt Brown single, discredited book.
Neither you nor Google have presented any evidence for evolution. All you come up with is evolution is a fact because evolution is a fact!
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
If something happens, regardless of the cause, then it is natural that it happens. Therefore there is no such thing as 'Supernatural', only 'Not Yet Understood'. Inasmuch as this is true you are merely taking the true Scientific Phrase of "I Do Not Know" to be 'proof' of an entirely implausible notion.
False! Since the appearance of the universe from nothing is impossible by some natural cause, then the cause was supernatural proving God exists. This is true despite your desire to make it false.
Experiments have & continue to be made, repeatedly & verifiably. In fact, Evolution in bacteria is one of the biggest problems facing Medical Science. No sooner is an antibody developed than the bacteria mutates (evolves) into a totally new strain. The only difference is that Creationists have invented the term "Micro-Evolution". The fact is that in Evolution there is no Micro or Macro. Evolution is Binary. It changes or it doesn't. Even Creationists accept that it does change. Evolution refers to imperceptible changes happening over millennia, with each miniscule change gradually culminating in a much larger change. The fossil record shows snapshots of these changes, and the Geological Ladder reveals the snapshots to be in exactly the order that we would expect to see them. On many occasions it has been predicted what would be expected BEFORE the actual discovery, which went on to further support the accuracy of the initial prediction.
Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics?
Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbes—germs that over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benefits, but which must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.
One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms evolved into plants and people?
As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!
Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.
Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.1
Here's the point. Mutations, adaptation, variation, diversity, population shifts, etc., all occur, but, these are not macroevolutionary changes.
Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics? | The Institute for Creation Research
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
And here we have the Creationist's hallmark of a False Premise - "The Fact That...". Where a quantity is an unknown factor it cannot be referred to as a 'fact'. There is no evidence to suggest one way or the other that the Universe came from nothing. The Physics Theories suggest that there was a culmination of energies which spontaneously reacted, forming Matter & Time as a result. The fact the the Universe is still expanding is something that HAS been proven. It doesn't prove how or why the expansion was initiated. Nobody knows the answer to that, so the last thing you can possibly describe it as is a 'Fact'.
And yet it is a fact the universe appeared from nothing. The evidence consists of the fact that before the universe existed there was nothing including your hypothetical notion of a culmination of energies which spontaneously reacted, forming Matter & Time as a result. That is pure imagination dreamed up to explain creation without a Creator. Spontaneous generation is generally accepted to have been decisively dispelled during the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur.
FourPart;1516429 wrote:
I, for one, have presented just a fraction of the evidence time & time again yet each & every time you take the typical Creationist point of view of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes & saying "La, la, la - I can't hear you". If you were to simply Google "Evidence For Evolution" you would be overwhelmed with information & evidence from a multitude of independent sources. However, I doubt if you even know how to use Google, as all your 'evidence' comes from Walt Brown single, discredited book.
Neither you nor Google have presented any evidence for evolution. All you come up with is evolution is a fact because evolution is a fact!
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
If something happens, regardless of the cause, then it is natural that it happens. Therefore there is no such thing as 'Supernatural', only 'Not Yet Understood'. Inasmuch as this is true you are merely taking the true Scientific Phrase of "I Do Not Know" to be 'proof' of an entirely implausible notion.
False! Since the appearance of the universe from nothing is impossible by some natural cause, then the cause was supernatural proving God exists. This is true despite your desire to make it false.
Experiments have & continue to be made, repeatedly & verifiably. In fact, Evolution in bacteria is one of the biggest problems facing Medical Science. No sooner is an antibody developed than the bacteria mutates (evolves) into a totally new strain. The only difference is that Creationists have invented the term "Micro-Evolution". The fact is that in Evolution there is no Micro or Macro. Evolution is Binary. It changes or it doesn't. Even Creationists accept that it does change. Evolution refers to imperceptible changes happening over millennia, with each miniscule change gradually culminating in a much larger change. The fossil record shows snapshots of these changes, and the Geological Ladder reveals the snapshots to be in exactly the order that we would expect to see them. On many occasions it has been predicted what would be expected BEFORE the actual discovery, which went on to further support the accuracy of the initial prediction.
Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics?
Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbes—germs that over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benefits, but which must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.
One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms evolved into plants and people?
As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!
Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.
Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.1
Here's the point. Mutations, adaptation, variation, diversity, population shifts, etc., all occur, but, these are not macroevolutionary changes.
Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics? | The Institute for Creation Research
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
And here we have the Creationist's hallmark of a False Premise - "The Fact That...". Where a quantity is an unknown factor it cannot be referred to as a 'fact'. There is no evidence to suggest one way or the other that the Universe came from nothing. The Physics Theories suggest that there was a culmination of energies which spontaneously reacted, forming Matter & Time as a result. The fact the the Universe is still expanding is something that HAS been proven. It doesn't prove how or why the expansion was initiated. Nobody knows the answer to that, so the last thing you can possibly describe it as is a 'Fact'.
And yet it is a fact the universe appeared from nothing. The evidence consists of the fact that before the universe existed there was nothing including your hypothetical notion of a culmination of energies which spontaneously reacted, forming Matter & Time as a result. That is pure imagination dreamed up to explain creation without a Creator. Spontaneous generation is generally accepted to have been decisively dispelled during the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1516435 wrote: False! Since the appearance of the universe from nothing is impossible by some natural cause, then the cause was supernatural proving God exists. This is true despite your desire to make it false.
You just don't get the idea of a False Premise do you? You are using the False Premise of assuming the Universe came from nothing & using that as a premise for arguing that nothing can come of nothing - which, incidentally, is exactly what your explanation involves. No Creationist has ever come up with an explanation of how God came to be - just the usual response when they don't know the answer to anything, God brought himself into existence. Do you have any concept of how retarded that makes you sound? Is it any wonder that Creationists are an International laughing stock?
Once again, though, as I said, Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of the Universe. Evolution deals with lifeforms that already exist & the gradual changes thereof. Why can't you understand that simple notion? You constantly keep coming back to the Big Bang / Creation argument which a totally different subject altogether. Evolution is to do with BIOLOGY. The Big Bang theory is to do with PHYSICS. They are 2 totally different sciences as well as being spaced eons apart.
I doubt you will ever follow any links, and you're even less likely to take any notice anyway - that is the Nature of a Creationist who asks for evidence, is presented with it & then denies its existence - just as I have done for you countless times in the past. However, here's a few for you to take a look at.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/s ... n-evidence
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... eationist/
Videos / What is the Evidence for Evolution? - Stated Clearly
You just don't get the idea of a False Premise do you? You are using the False Premise of assuming the Universe came from nothing & using that as a premise for arguing that nothing can come of nothing - which, incidentally, is exactly what your explanation involves. No Creationist has ever come up with an explanation of how God came to be - just the usual response when they don't know the answer to anything, God brought himself into existence. Do you have any concept of how retarded that makes you sound? Is it any wonder that Creationists are an International laughing stock?
Once again, though, as I said, Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of the Universe. Evolution deals with lifeforms that already exist & the gradual changes thereof. Why can't you understand that simple notion? You constantly keep coming back to the Big Bang / Creation argument which a totally different subject altogether. Evolution is to do with BIOLOGY. The Big Bang theory is to do with PHYSICS. They are 2 totally different sciences as well as being spaced eons apart.
I doubt you will ever follow any links, and you're even less likely to take any notice anyway - that is the Nature of a Creationist who asks for evidence, is presented with it & then denies its existence - just as I have done for you countless times in the past. However, here's a few for you to take a look at.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/s ... n-evidence
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... eationist/
Videos / What is the Evidence for Evolution? - Stated Clearly