You say the record shows that he was born in Bethlehem. There is no such record - only what the Bible says. There is not even any such record of the supposed census which was supposed to have brought them there, and you would have thought there would be no problem finding any record of such an event. The very nature of the census is a fabrication. The idea of having to return to the place of a person's birth so that they could be taxed is a farce. What benefit would that have to the Romans? They would need to know where they were at the time, not where they were born.
Regarding interpretations, you accuse LarsMac of being wrong by using the words "That is what YOU say" after you had been making up something that was totally wrong. As I understand it Jesus was supposed to have used the exact same words when Pilate said he claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus denied it with those words.
Regarding quotes - Ted gave you the source of the ORIGINAL quote, before it went through countless translations & interpretations. Surely THAT is the one that is likely to be more accurate? So why do you insist on using the corrupted version? When you make a record you first make a Master Copy. You do not make a Copy, then a copy of that copy & then another copy of that copy etc, and then say that the latest one you have is more accurate than the original Master Copy.
Ted is a scholar of this subject. HE knows what he is talking about. You do not. The Biblical quotes you pasted could refer to anything at all. They are nothing more than horoscopes in any daily rag. They will always be interpreted by some sap to be really accurate to their own individual circumstances, even though those circumstances are entirely different from someone else's, who the horoscope also just happens to fit precisely.
Entropy. Once again you come back to the old chestnut always brought up by Creationists who don't understand what the 2nd law actually refers to. Entropy specifically states that it applies only to a CLOSED SYSTEM. The Universe is not a closed system. Secondly, your claim is also overruled by the 1st law. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another". Energy is Energy. There is no such thing as "usable energy being lost", as you put it. Whatever the circumstances, the energy is still there. Furthermore, according to the Theory of Relativity, Time, being interchangeable with Energy can also be considered as a form of Energy. As Time has no end, neither has Energy.
As for the evidence of gradual changes between species - as usual you totally disregard the evidence & deny it, so there's no point in constantly repeating it. Additional evidence is coming to light every day. Science doesn't rely on small pieces of evidence or mistaken interpretations of limited evidence, it builds on it & seeks to improve its understanding. Creationism, on the other hand, believes it has the whole answer in its single reference book, written through word of mouth, through translations & interpretations & general folklore. Anything that challenges that belief simply doesn't exist, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512484 wrote: You say the record shows that he was born in Bethlehem. There is no such record - only what the Bible says.
What is recorded in the Bible is accurate.
There is not even any such record of the supposed census which was supposed to have brought them there, and you would have thought there would be no problem finding any record of such an event. The very nature of the census is a fabrication. The idea of having to return to the place of a person's birth so that they could be taxed is a farce. What benefit would that have to the Romans? They would need to know where they were at the time, not where they were born.
WAS THERE REALLY A CENSUS DURING THE TIME OF CAESAR AUGUSTUS?
Archaeology Illuminates & Affirms a Key Fact in the Christmas Story
By all counts, Luke’s gospel is a wealth of accurate historical information.
He opens it this way:
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us¦ it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. (Luke 1:1;3-4)
Luke’s primary concern is order and accuracy, so that the recipient of the document (a certain Theophilus), “might know the certainty of those things in which he was instructed (v. 4).
Not only is Luke’s account orderly, it is an excellent record of what truly happened that no-so-silent night, two thousand years ago.
The great classical archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, said that Luke was a “first rate historian¦
One who writes “¦historical works of the highest order, in which a writer commands excellent means of knowledge, either through personal acquaintance or through access to original authorities, and brings to the treatment of his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight into human character and the movement of events. Such an author seizes the critical events, concentrates the reader’s attention on them by giving them fuller treatment¦[1]
One such event to which Luke draws attention is a government census which took place during the reign of Augustus, before Christ was born. This event is a pivotal event in the Christmas story and is often looked at with skepticism by some.
At the very beginning of Luke’s Christmas narrative in Luke 2:1-5 we are told that a census took place in the entire Roman world. The words are very familiar during Christmas as they are read aloud in so many sermons, plays, musicals and Christmas celebrations.
And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Qurinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered, to Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child (Luke 2:1-5).
For many years, historians and scholars have pointed to the passage above mentioning the decree by Quirinius, as problematic if not completely inaccurate. Did a census really take place in the entire Roman world during that time, and did Mary & Joseph actually go up to Bethlehem to be registered, as Luke Gospel says?
New Testament scholar Dr. Harold W. Hoehner has summarized some of the top challenges faced by those who hold to the historical accuracy of Luke’s account.
He writes:
“[Emil] Schurer states that Luke cannot be historically accurate because: (1) nothing is known in history of a general census during the time of Augustus; (2) in a Roman census Joseph would have not had to travel to Bethlehem, but would have registered in the principle town of his residence, and Mary would hat have had to register at all; (3) no Roman census would have been made in Palestine during Herod’s reign; (4) Josephus records nothing of a Roman census in Palestine in the time of Herod – rather the census of A.D. 6-7 was something new among the Jews; and (5) a census held under Qurinius could not have occurred during Herod’s reign for Quirinius was not governor until after Herod’s death.[2]
At first glance, these objections to the Roman census during the reigns of emperor [imperator] Caesar Augustus (Octavius) and governor [legatus] Quirinus may seem insurmountable and quite difficult to answer, but an honest appraisal of the historical and archaeological evidence suggests that they are not.
The objections we will answer here are 1 and 2 – (1) the claim that nothing is known in history of a general census during the time of Augustus, and (2) that in a Roman census Mary & Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem to register.
Was There Census During the Reign of Augustus in the Roman World?
It is a commonly held assumption that the decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world was to be taxed, was a single census [a single event] in the entire Roman empire. The question is, is this how Luke understood it, or intended it to be understood? Very likely, not.
According to Hoehner, “What is meant is that censuses were taken at different times in different provinces – Augustus being the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly, rather than only one time.[3]
New Testament historian Jack Finegan says, “As to the taking of such an enrollment in general, it is known from discoveries among the Egyptian papyri that a Roman census was taken in Egypt, and therefore perhaps also throughout the empire regularly, every fourteen years. Many actual census returns have been found, and they use the very same word (ἀπογÏάφω) which Luke 2:2 uses for the “enrollment.[4]
The specific census which Luke mentions (Lk. 2:2), is that it “first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.
Apart from Luke we have two other historical sources concerning Quirinius – the Roman historian, Tacitus (Annals 3.48) and the Jewish/Roman historian, Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 18.1-2).
According to Tacitus (Annals 3.48), P. Sulpicius Quirinius died in A.D. 21.
Josephus’s reference to Quirinius in Antiquities of the Jews (18,I,1.) poses somewhat of a problem, because he informs us that the “taxings conducted by Quirinius while governing Syria were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over [Marc] Anthony at Actium in 31 B.C.. This would place the census in about A.D. 6/7, a date which is too late to be brought into alignment with the birth of Christ which was likely in the winter 5/4 B.C.[5]
In Luke’s account in Luke 2:2, he speaks of a census which “first took place when Quirinius was governing Syria, so it is not out of the question that the census to which Josephus is referring was the second one, while Luke mentions the “first one [i.e the earlier one].
Gleason Archer also notes that Luke, “was therefore well aware of the second census, taken by Quirinius in A.D. 7, which Josephus alludes to¦ We know this because Luke (who lived much closer to the time that Josephus did) also quotes Gamaliel as alluding to the insurrection of Judas of Galilee “in the days of census taking (Acts 5:37).[6]
Additional evidence also seems to suggest that Quirinius served as governor twice which would then put him in an official position over Syria to enact the census of Luke 2:2. In 1784, a Latin inscription was discovered near Tivoli, located about twenty miles east of Rome. It is known as the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription, and according to Jack Finegan it, “¦contains the statement of a high Roman official that when he became governor of Syria he entered the office for the second time (Latin, iterum). It has even been thought that this personage might have been Quirinius¦[7]
Whatever the identity is of the Roman official mentioned in the inscription, at minimum shows that it was not uncommon for Roman procurators to have served twice, and maximally it may eventually reveal that it was Quirinius himself, through further research.
Is it Plausible that Mary & Joseph Traveled to Bethlehem for the Census?
Luke 2:4-5 states: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
Objection 2 listed above states, that in a Roman census Joseph would have not had to travel to Bethlehem, but would have registered in the principle town of his residence, and Mary would not have had to register at all.
It was generally understood that Roman law instructed property owners to register for taxation in the district where they owned land. However, “¦a papyrus dated to A.D. 104, records an Egyptian prefect who ordered Egyptians to return to their ancestral homes so that a census could be taken. In first century Rome, since the Jews’ property was linked to their fathers (i.e. patriarchal), the Romans would certainly have allowed them the custom of laying claim to their family estate for taxation.[8]
Since every person needed to appear in his ancestral homeland and since Mary was betrothed to Joseph, and pregnant with child, the two traveled to Bethlehem together. Surely Mary & Joseph would have understood the Scriptures, and the prophecies concerning Israel’s Messiah – that He must be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). It must have been truly amazing from their perspective, to see pieces of the Messianic puzzle fall in place – even if the pieces were official decrees from the Roman empire!
Once again, when Scripture is placed under the scrutiny of historical and archaeological research, it stands the test in amazing ways.
This is but one small example of where archaeology and history corroborate the Scripture to the finest detail. Luke’s gospel is just the first part of a two-volume set in which Acts is the second. Colin Hemer’s massive study, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History details at least 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by either historical or archeological research.
Truly Luke is indeed a remarkable historian. Like Theophilus, we can know the certainty of the things in which we have been instructed (the Gospel of Jesus Christ).
Jesus Came In the Fullness of Time
In Galatians 4:4 the Apostle Paul wrote: But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
When Jesus the Messiah arrived, His timing was perfect! From the appearing of the star to the wise men, to the taking of the census by Rome, it was not too soon, and not too late. His first coming was not only perfect chronologically and historically, it was perfect in God’s providential time.
If Christ’s first coming is any indication of what the Second coming will be like – we can rest assured that the timing of His Second Coming (Revelation 19:11-21) will be right on God’s perfect divine time, once again.
[1] William Ramsay, Saint Paul: The Traveler and Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001 reprint), 16.
[2] Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 14.
[3] Ibid., 15
[4] Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past: The Archaeological Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion, Volume II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 258.
[5] See Finegan, Ibid., 259, See also Hoehner’s work on this date which goes into much more detail in the original sources; Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), especially Chapter 1, ‘The Date of Christ’s Birth,’ pp. 29-44.
[6] Gleason L. Archer, Jr., New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982),
[7] See, Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible, Revised Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), p. 304. A view also held by William Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 4th Ed., London, 1920, pp. 275-300.
[8] See, Harold Hoehner, p.15
Was There Really A Census During the Time of Caesar Augustus? - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers
What is recorded in the Bible is accurate.
There is not even any such record of the supposed census which was supposed to have brought them there, and you would have thought there would be no problem finding any record of such an event. The very nature of the census is a fabrication. The idea of having to return to the place of a person's birth so that they could be taxed is a farce. What benefit would that have to the Romans? They would need to know where they were at the time, not where they were born.
WAS THERE REALLY A CENSUS DURING THE TIME OF CAESAR AUGUSTUS?
Archaeology Illuminates & Affirms a Key Fact in the Christmas Story
By all counts, Luke’s gospel is a wealth of accurate historical information.
He opens it this way:
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us¦ it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. (Luke 1:1;3-4)
Luke’s primary concern is order and accuracy, so that the recipient of the document (a certain Theophilus), “might know the certainty of those things in which he was instructed (v. 4).
Not only is Luke’s account orderly, it is an excellent record of what truly happened that no-so-silent night, two thousand years ago.
The great classical archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, said that Luke was a “first rate historian¦
One who writes “¦historical works of the highest order, in which a writer commands excellent means of knowledge, either through personal acquaintance or through access to original authorities, and brings to the treatment of his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight into human character and the movement of events. Such an author seizes the critical events, concentrates the reader’s attention on them by giving them fuller treatment¦[1]
One such event to which Luke draws attention is a government census which took place during the reign of Augustus, before Christ was born. This event is a pivotal event in the Christmas story and is often looked at with skepticism by some.
At the very beginning of Luke’s Christmas narrative in Luke 2:1-5 we are told that a census took place in the entire Roman world. The words are very familiar during Christmas as they are read aloud in so many sermons, plays, musicals and Christmas celebrations.
And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Qurinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered, to Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child (Luke 2:1-5).
For many years, historians and scholars have pointed to the passage above mentioning the decree by Quirinius, as problematic if not completely inaccurate. Did a census really take place in the entire Roman world during that time, and did Mary & Joseph actually go up to Bethlehem to be registered, as Luke Gospel says?
New Testament scholar Dr. Harold W. Hoehner has summarized some of the top challenges faced by those who hold to the historical accuracy of Luke’s account.
He writes:
“[Emil] Schurer states that Luke cannot be historically accurate because: (1) nothing is known in history of a general census during the time of Augustus; (2) in a Roman census Joseph would have not had to travel to Bethlehem, but would have registered in the principle town of his residence, and Mary would hat have had to register at all; (3) no Roman census would have been made in Palestine during Herod’s reign; (4) Josephus records nothing of a Roman census in Palestine in the time of Herod – rather the census of A.D. 6-7 was something new among the Jews; and (5) a census held under Qurinius could not have occurred during Herod’s reign for Quirinius was not governor until after Herod’s death.[2]
At first glance, these objections to the Roman census during the reigns of emperor [imperator] Caesar Augustus (Octavius) and governor [legatus] Quirinus may seem insurmountable and quite difficult to answer, but an honest appraisal of the historical and archaeological evidence suggests that they are not.
The objections we will answer here are 1 and 2 – (1) the claim that nothing is known in history of a general census during the time of Augustus, and (2) that in a Roman census Mary & Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem to register.
Was There Census During the Reign of Augustus in the Roman World?
It is a commonly held assumption that the decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world was to be taxed, was a single census [a single event] in the entire Roman empire. The question is, is this how Luke understood it, or intended it to be understood? Very likely, not.
According to Hoehner, “What is meant is that censuses were taken at different times in different provinces – Augustus being the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly, rather than only one time.[3]
New Testament historian Jack Finegan says, “As to the taking of such an enrollment in general, it is known from discoveries among the Egyptian papyri that a Roman census was taken in Egypt, and therefore perhaps also throughout the empire regularly, every fourteen years. Many actual census returns have been found, and they use the very same word (ἀπογÏάφω) which Luke 2:2 uses for the “enrollment.[4]
The specific census which Luke mentions (Lk. 2:2), is that it “first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.
Apart from Luke we have two other historical sources concerning Quirinius – the Roman historian, Tacitus (Annals 3.48) and the Jewish/Roman historian, Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 18.1-2).
According to Tacitus (Annals 3.48), P. Sulpicius Quirinius died in A.D. 21.
Josephus’s reference to Quirinius in Antiquities of the Jews (18,I,1.) poses somewhat of a problem, because he informs us that the “taxings conducted by Quirinius while governing Syria were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over [Marc] Anthony at Actium in 31 B.C.. This would place the census in about A.D. 6/7, a date which is too late to be brought into alignment with the birth of Christ which was likely in the winter 5/4 B.C.[5]
In Luke’s account in Luke 2:2, he speaks of a census which “first took place when Quirinius was governing Syria, so it is not out of the question that the census to which Josephus is referring was the second one, while Luke mentions the “first one [i.e the earlier one].
Gleason Archer also notes that Luke, “was therefore well aware of the second census, taken by Quirinius in A.D. 7, which Josephus alludes to¦ We know this because Luke (who lived much closer to the time that Josephus did) also quotes Gamaliel as alluding to the insurrection of Judas of Galilee “in the days of census taking (Acts 5:37).[6]
Additional evidence also seems to suggest that Quirinius served as governor twice which would then put him in an official position over Syria to enact the census of Luke 2:2. In 1784, a Latin inscription was discovered near Tivoli, located about twenty miles east of Rome. It is known as the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription, and according to Jack Finegan it, “¦contains the statement of a high Roman official that when he became governor of Syria he entered the office for the second time (Latin, iterum). It has even been thought that this personage might have been Quirinius¦[7]
Whatever the identity is of the Roman official mentioned in the inscription, at minimum shows that it was not uncommon for Roman procurators to have served twice, and maximally it may eventually reveal that it was Quirinius himself, through further research.
Is it Plausible that Mary & Joseph Traveled to Bethlehem for the Census?
Luke 2:4-5 states: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
Objection 2 listed above states, that in a Roman census Joseph would have not had to travel to Bethlehem, but would have registered in the principle town of his residence, and Mary would not have had to register at all.
It was generally understood that Roman law instructed property owners to register for taxation in the district where they owned land. However, “¦a papyrus dated to A.D. 104, records an Egyptian prefect who ordered Egyptians to return to their ancestral homes so that a census could be taken. In first century Rome, since the Jews’ property was linked to their fathers (i.e. patriarchal), the Romans would certainly have allowed them the custom of laying claim to their family estate for taxation.[8]
Since every person needed to appear in his ancestral homeland and since Mary was betrothed to Joseph, and pregnant with child, the two traveled to Bethlehem together. Surely Mary & Joseph would have understood the Scriptures, and the prophecies concerning Israel’s Messiah – that He must be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). It must have been truly amazing from their perspective, to see pieces of the Messianic puzzle fall in place – even if the pieces were official decrees from the Roman empire!
Once again, when Scripture is placed under the scrutiny of historical and archaeological research, it stands the test in amazing ways.
This is but one small example of where archaeology and history corroborate the Scripture to the finest detail. Luke’s gospel is just the first part of a two-volume set in which Acts is the second. Colin Hemer’s massive study, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History details at least 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by either historical or archeological research.
Truly Luke is indeed a remarkable historian. Like Theophilus, we can know the certainty of the things in which we have been instructed (the Gospel of Jesus Christ).
Jesus Came In the Fullness of Time
In Galatians 4:4 the Apostle Paul wrote: But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
When Jesus the Messiah arrived, His timing was perfect! From the appearing of the star to the wise men, to the taking of the census by Rome, it was not too soon, and not too late. His first coming was not only perfect chronologically and historically, it was perfect in God’s providential time.
If Christ’s first coming is any indication of what the Second coming will be like – we can rest assured that the timing of His Second Coming (Revelation 19:11-21) will be right on God’s perfect divine time, once again.
[1] William Ramsay, Saint Paul: The Traveler and Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001 reprint), 16.
[2] Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 14.
[3] Ibid., 15
[4] Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past: The Archaeological Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion, Volume II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 258.
[5] See Finegan, Ibid., 259, See also Hoehner’s work on this date which goes into much more detail in the original sources; Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), especially Chapter 1, ‘The Date of Christ’s Birth,’ pp. 29-44.
[6] Gleason L. Archer, Jr., New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982),
[7] See, Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible, Revised Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), p. 304. A view also held by William Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 4th Ed., London, 1920, pp. 275-300.
[8] See, Harold Hoehner, p.15
Was There Really A Census During the Time of Caesar Augustus? - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512484 wrote:
Regarding interpretations, you accuse LarsMac of being wrong by using the words "That is what YOU say" after you had been making up something that was totally wrong. As I understand it Jesus was supposed to have used the exact same words when Pilate said he claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus denied it with those words.
Regarding quotes - Ted gave you the source of the ORIGINAL quote, before it went through countless translations & interpretations. Surely THAT is the one that is likely to be more accurate? So why do you insist on using the corrupted version? When you make a record you first make a Master Copy. You do not make a Copy, then a copy of that copy & then another copy of that copy etc, and then say that the latest one you have is more accurate than the original Master Copy.
The Bible is based on manuscripts dating to within 100 years of the events.
Bible Manuscript Preservation
Who preserved the Bible manuscripts we have today? ¨¨Who preserved the Bible manuscripts that we use today? The simplest answer would be the ancient Jewish and Christian faith communities. They decided that particular books had a binding authority on the community of faith. These books became a part of a canon of Scripture. S. Z. Leiman states, "A canonical book is a book accepted by Jews as authoritative for religious practice and/or doctrine, and whose authority is binding upon the Jewish people for all generations."1 Canonical books are God-given and people of faith feel compelled to obey them.
The Hebrew Canon - One can divide the Hebrew canon into three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Jesus referred to the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms in Luke 24:44 in reference to His ministry. From its very beginning, the church used these Scriptures inherited from their Jewish roots. "Every OT book except Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah is quoted in the NT."2 The New Testament, therefore, uses a "canonical body of literature that approximates the OT [Old Testament]."3 ¨¨
The Dead Sea Scrolls - The Dead Sea Scrolls exist today as the result of the copying of Scriptures by the Essenes, a Jewish community of faith, existing from the middle of the second century B.C. until A.D. 68. Thirty-eight of the thirty-nine Old Testament books were included in these texts. ¨¨
The Septuagint - As Hebrew died out as a living language, Old Testament books were translated into other spoken languages, the most important of which was the Greek, called the Septuagint. The widespread belief is that Jews living in Egypt preserved these books. Some believe that the Jews closed their canon in A.D. 90 because of a rabbinical counsel held in Jamnia. Historical records show that the early New Testament Church and first-century Jews did not differ over the Hebrew canon. ¨¨
The Gospels and Paul's Letters - By the middle of the second century A.D., Paul's letters and the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were widely circulated and read in the churches. Some books were disputed during this time, such as James, Hebrews, 2nd Peter through 3rd John, and Revelation. As a result of the pulling away of some from the church under the teachings of Marcion, who renounced the Old Testament, efforts were made to define what the authoritative writings were in a more exact way. ¨¨
The New Testament - In the first two centuries A.D. all twenty-seven books were accepted. In the third and fourth centuries, there was a period of intense debate over the "apostles" portion of the writings and commonly valued writings like the Apocalypse of Peter. These debates helped to give a clearer determination of the limits of the canon. Two major Eastern Church fathers are prominent in these discussions: Origen, theologian and biblical scholar, and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. ¨¨A series of church councils helped to solidify the canon in the fourth century. In the Western church, Augustine argued for "no more and no less" than the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. This carried the day at three councils held in northern Africa from A.D. 393-419. ¨
¨Learn More about the Origin of the Bible!
Bible Manuscripts
Ted is a scholar of this subject. HE knows what he is talking about. You do not. The Biblical quotes you pasted could refer to anything at all. They are nothing more than horoscopes in any daily rag. They will always be interpreted by some sap to be really accurate to their own individual circumstances, even though those circumstances are entirely different from someone else's, who the horoscope also just happens to fit precisely.
Bible prophecy has nothing to do with horoscopes. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
Entropy. Once again you come back to the old chestnut always brought up by Creationists who don't understand what the 2nd law actually refers to. Entropy specifically states that it applies only to a CLOSED SYSTEM. The Universe is not a closed system. Secondly, your claim is also overruled by the 1st law. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another". Energy is Energy. There is no such thing as "usable energy being lost", as you put it. Whatever the circumstances, the energy is still there. Furthermore, according to the Theory of Relativity, Time, being interchangeable with Energy can also be considered as a form of Energy. As Time has no end, neither has Energy.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics
by Jonathan Sarfati
Open Systems
‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
• usable energy is running out
• information tends to get scrambled
• order tends towards disorder
• a random jumble won’t organize itself
•
It also depends on the type of system:
• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.
http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... to-critics
As for the evidence of gradual changes between species - as usual you totally disregard the evidence & deny it, so there's no point in constantly repeating it. Additional evidence is coming to light every day. Science doesn't rely on small pieces of evidence or mistaken interpretations of limited evidence, it builds on it & seeks to improve its understanding. Creationism, on the other hand, believes it has the whole answer in its single reference book, written through word of mouth, through translations & interpretations & general folklore. Anything that challenges that belief simply doesn't exist, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.
Evolution teaches the gradual change from one kind to another. If that ever happened, there would be billions of transitions in the fossil record. None have been found.
Regarding interpretations, you accuse LarsMac of being wrong by using the words "That is what YOU say" after you had been making up something that was totally wrong. As I understand it Jesus was supposed to have used the exact same words when Pilate said he claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus denied it with those words.
Regarding quotes - Ted gave you the source of the ORIGINAL quote, before it went through countless translations & interpretations. Surely THAT is the one that is likely to be more accurate? So why do you insist on using the corrupted version? When you make a record you first make a Master Copy. You do not make a Copy, then a copy of that copy & then another copy of that copy etc, and then say that the latest one you have is more accurate than the original Master Copy.
The Bible is based on manuscripts dating to within 100 years of the events.
Bible Manuscript Preservation
Who preserved the Bible manuscripts we have today? ¨¨Who preserved the Bible manuscripts that we use today? The simplest answer would be the ancient Jewish and Christian faith communities. They decided that particular books had a binding authority on the community of faith. These books became a part of a canon of Scripture. S. Z. Leiman states, "A canonical book is a book accepted by Jews as authoritative for religious practice and/or doctrine, and whose authority is binding upon the Jewish people for all generations."1 Canonical books are God-given and people of faith feel compelled to obey them.
The Hebrew Canon - One can divide the Hebrew canon into three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Jesus referred to the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms in Luke 24:44 in reference to His ministry. From its very beginning, the church used these Scriptures inherited from their Jewish roots. "Every OT book except Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah is quoted in the NT."2 The New Testament, therefore, uses a "canonical body of literature that approximates the OT [Old Testament]."3 ¨¨
The Dead Sea Scrolls - The Dead Sea Scrolls exist today as the result of the copying of Scriptures by the Essenes, a Jewish community of faith, existing from the middle of the second century B.C. until A.D. 68. Thirty-eight of the thirty-nine Old Testament books were included in these texts. ¨¨
The Septuagint - As Hebrew died out as a living language, Old Testament books were translated into other spoken languages, the most important of which was the Greek, called the Septuagint. The widespread belief is that Jews living in Egypt preserved these books. Some believe that the Jews closed their canon in A.D. 90 because of a rabbinical counsel held in Jamnia. Historical records show that the early New Testament Church and first-century Jews did not differ over the Hebrew canon. ¨¨
The Gospels and Paul's Letters - By the middle of the second century A.D., Paul's letters and the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were widely circulated and read in the churches. Some books were disputed during this time, such as James, Hebrews, 2nd Peter through 3rd John, and Revelation. As a result of the pulling away of some from the church under the teachings of Marcion, who renounced the Old Testament, efforts were made to define what the authoritative writings were in a more exact way. ¨¨
The New Testament - In the first two centuries A.D. all twenty-seven books were accepted. In the third and fourth centuries, there was a period of intense debate over the "apostles" portion of the writings and commonly valued writings like the Apocalypse of Peter. These debates helped to give a clearer determination of the limits of the canon. Two major Eastern Church fathers are prominent in these discussions: Origen, theologian and biblical scholar, and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. ¨¨A series of church councils helped to solidify the canon in the fourth century. In the Western church, Augustine argued for "no more and no less" than the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. This carried the day at three councils held in northern Africa from A.D. 393-419. ¨
¨Learn More about the Origin of the Bible!
Bible Manuscripts
Ted is a scholar of this subject. HE knows what he is talking about. You do not. The Biblical quotes you pasted could refer to anything at all. They are nothing more than horoscopes in any daily rag. They will always be interpreted by some sap to be really accurate to their own individual circumstances, even though those circumstances are entirely different from someone else's, who the horoscope also just happens to fit precisely.
Bible prophecy has nothing to do with horoscopes. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
Entropy. Once again you come back to the old chestnut always brought up by Creationists who don't understand what the 2nd law actually refers to. Entropy specifically states that it applies only to a CLOSED SYSTEM. The Universe is not a closed system. Secondly, your claim is also overruled by the 1st law. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another". Energy is Energy. There is no such thing as "usable energy being lost", as you put it. Whatever the circumstances, the energy is still there. Furthermore, according to the Theory of Relativity, Time, being interchangeable with Energy can also be considered as a form of Energy. As Time has no end, neither has Energy.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics
by Jonathan Sarfati
Open Systems
‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
• usable energy is running out
• information tends to get scrambled
• order tends towards disorder
• a random jumble won’t organize itself
•
It also depends on the type of system:
• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.
http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... to-critics
As for the evidence of gradual changes between species - as usual you totally disregard the evidence & deny it, so there's no point in constantly repeating it. Additional evidence is coming to light every day. Science doesn't rely on small pieces of evidence or mistaken interpretations of limited evidence, it builds on it & seeks to improve its understanding. Creationism, on the other hand, believes it has the whole answer in its single reference book, written through word of mouth, through translations & interpretations & general folklore. Anything that challenges that belief simply doesn't exist, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.
Evolution teaches the gradual change from one kind to another. If that ever happened, there would be billions of transitions in the fossil record. None have been found.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512501 wrote: The Bible is based on manuscripts dating to within 100 years of the events.
That is the key phrase - "Based On". All sorts of fictions are based on other fictions. Then later fictions move on to be based on the previous fiction.
Regarding the census - once again you are taking your 'evidence' from the very thing that is being challenged. It's like the accused in court saying "It wasn't me, I was at the other end of the country, saying goodbye to my Mother on her death bed", and the jury finding him not guilty on that basis. The fact that there is no-one to corroborate his story is neither here nor there. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that there was no such census & that the whole story of the Nativity was a fallacy, so as to fall in line with a couple of vagueries in previous texts. A census would have been a major national event, and would have been recorded in many other ways other than the Bible by those of all faiths. Even the supposed dates are a matter of great controversy. It is said to be the census of Quirinius, ordered by Herod - who were alive at totally different times. Furthermore, the Romans would have had nothing to do with any censuses in that part of the country, as that came under Herod's domain. The whole story is flawed from the start & an obvious attempt to crowbar the presence of something into an entirely different location.
That is the key phrase - "Based On". All sorts of fictions are based on other fictions. Then later fictions move on to be based on the previous fiction.
Regarding the census - once again you are taking your 'evidence' from the very thing that is being challenged. It's like the accused in court saying "It wasn't me, I was at the other end of the country, saying goodbye to my Mother on her death bed", and the jury finding him not guilty on that basis. The fact that there is no-one to corroborate his story is neither here nor there. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that there was no such census & that the whole story of the Nativity was a fallacy, so as to fall in line with a couple of vagueries in previous texts. A census would have been a major national event, and would have been recorded in many other ways other than the Bible by those of all faiths. Even the supposed dates are a matter of great controversy. It is said to be the census of Quirinius, ordered by Herod - who were alive at totally different times. Furthermore, the Romans would have had nothing to do with any censuses in that part of the country, as that came under Herod's domain. The whole story is flawed from the start & an obvious attempt to crowbar the presence of something into an entirely different location.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512501 wrote: ...
Yadda yadda, and more yadda...
Evolution teaches the gradual change from one kind to another. If that ever happened, there would be billions of transitions in the fossil record. None have been found.
Evolution teaches nothing. Evolution simply describes a process, and the definition of evolution has been applied to explain a diversity of species that appear to have developed over time, according to the evidence scientists have observed in the last few centuries.
Yadda yadda, and more yadda...
Evolution teaches the gradual change from one kind to another. If that ever happened, there would be billions of transitions in the fossil record. None have been found.
Evolution teaches nothing. Evolution simply describes a process, and the definition of evolution has been applied to explain a diversity of species that appear to have developed over time, according to the evidence scientists have observed in the last few centuries.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Every single fossil found is a transitional species. Even we are a transitional species.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512506 wrote: That is the key phrase - "Based On". All sorts of fictions are based on other fictions. Then later fictions move on to be based on the previous fiction.
Regarding the census - once again you are taking your 'evidence' from the very thing that is being challenged. It's like the accused in court saying "It wasn't me, I was at the other end of the country, saying goodbye to my Mother on her death bed", and the jury finding him not guilty on that basis. The fact that there is no-one to corroborate his story is neither here nor there. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that there was no such census & that the whole story of the Nativity was a fallacy, so as to fall in line with a couple of vagueries in previous texts. A census would have been a major national event, and would have been recorded in many other ways other than the Bible by those of all faiths. Even the supposed dates are a matter of great controversy. It is said to be the census of Quirinius, ordered by Herod - who were alive at totally different times. Furthermore, the Romans would have had nothing to do with any censuses in that part of the country, as that came under Herod's domain. The whole story is flawed from the start & an obvious attempt to crowbar the presence of something into an entirely different location.
Evidence free denial.
Regarding the census - once again you are taking your 'evidence' from the very thing that is being challenged. It's like the accused in court saying "It wasn't me, I was at the other end of the country, saying goodbye to my Mother on her death bed", and the jury finding him not guilty on that basis. The fact that there is no-one to corroborate his story is neither here nor there. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that there was no such census & that the whole story of the Nativity was a fallacy, so as to fall in line with a couple of vagueries in previous texts. A census would have been a major national event, and would have been recorded in many other ways other than the Bible by those of all faiths. Even the supposed dates are a matter of great controversy. It is said to be the census of Quirinius, ordered by Herod - who were alive at totally different times. Furthermore, the Romans would have had nothing to do with any censuses in that part of the country, as that came under Herod's domain. The whole story is flawed from the start & an obvious attempt to crowbar the presence of something into an entirely different location.
Evidence free denial.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512510 wrote: Every single fossil found is a transitional species. Even we are a transitional species.
False. Of the millions of fossils found and examined, not one transitional fossils has been found.
False. Of the millions of fossils found and examined, not one transitional fossils has been found.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512508 wrote: Evolution teaches nothing. Evolution simply describes a process, and the definition of evolution has been applied to explain a diversity of species that appear to have developed over time, according to the evidence scientists have observed in the last few centuries.
There is no evidence for evolution. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
There is no evidence for evolution. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512523 wrote: There is no evidence for evolution. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
Sorry. No science there. Just random statements, mostly nothing but opinions, all removed from any context, and presented as something noteworthy.
You know, when I first found your thread, here, I thought to give you a listen (figuratively speaking) to see what you had to offer. I came in with a fairly open mind. But ultimately, what you have done for me personally, is to convince me just how wrong people like you really are.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
Sorry. No science there. Just random statements, mostly nothing but opinions, all removed from any context, and presented as something noteworthy.
You know, when I first found your thread, here, I thought to give you a listen (figuratively speaking) to see what you had to offer. I came in with a fairly open mind. But ultimately, what you have done for me personally, is to convince me just how wrong people like you really are.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512527 wrote: Sorry. No science there. Just random statements, mostly nothing but opinions, all removed from any context, and presented as something noteworthy.
You know, when I first found your thread, here, I thought to give you a listen (figuratively speaking) to see what you had to offer. I came in with a fairly open mind. But ultimately, what you have done for me personally, is to convince me just how wrong people like you really are.
So you reject the findings of scientists? Here is more:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 2
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.
Scientists Speak About Evolution - 2
You know, when I first found your thread, here, I thought to give you a listen (figuratively speaking) to see what you had to offer. I came in with a fairly open mind. But ultimately, what you have done for me personally, is to convince me just how wrong people like you really are.
So you reject the findings of scientists? Here is more:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 2
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.
Scientists Speak About Evolution - 2
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As I said to you - EVERY fossil found is a transitional one, as EVERY lifeform is transitional, as Evolution is an ongoing process. No matter how many fossils found that fit in the slots between each of the others, you will say that there is no transitional one between that one & the next / preceding one.
You are right about the census business being evidence free speculation. There is no evidence, therefore to claim that it did exist is, indeed, evidence free & based on simple hearsay, which in itself has contradictory statements.
You say that Jesus was the Son of God, yet according to your Bible, he denied that. Do you, therefore, dispute the word of Jesus, or are you simply saying that the Bible is lying? It has to be one or the other. The 2 options are in conflict.
You are right about the census business being evidence free speculation. There is no evidence, therefore to claim that it did exist is, indeed, evidence free & based on simple hearsay, which in itself has contradictory statements.
You say that Jesus was the Son of God, yet according to your Bible, he denied that. Do you, therefore, dispute the word of Jesus, or are you simply saying that the Bible is lying? It has to be one or the other. The 2 options are in conflict.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512543 wrote: As I said to you - EVERY fossil found is a transitional one, as EVERY lifeform is transitional, as Evolution is an ongoing process. No matter how many fossils found that fit in the slots between each of the others, you will say that there is no transitional one between that one & the next / preceding one.
Wrong! No transitional fossils have been found among the millions of fossils that have been examined. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
The Biggest Problems for Evolution
The design of living things has always been a huge problem for evolutionists. Even the simplest single-cell organism is unimaginably complex, with scores of highly sophisticated parts, all performing important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely arranged amino acids.
And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working parts of a cell. When it is recognized that all of these parts must be present and functioning at the start, it must be admitted that life is impossible without an Intelligent Designer. Actually, every living thing gives such strong evidence for design that only willfully ignoring the data (2 Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance and natural selection. Every living thing, from simple bacteria to people, possesses the marvelous DNA code, which contains a library full of precise information, and without which life is impossible.
Another fatal problem for evolution—which, if it occurred at all, occurred in the long-ago past—lies in the nature of the fossil record, which is the only physical record we have of life in the past. As is now being admitted by my evolutionary colleagues, the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no undisputed chain of in-between forms has ever been discovered.
Each basic type is distinct in the modern world and in the fossil record, although there is much variation within these basic types. While gradual “Darwinian evolution has always predicted that transitional forms would one day be found, the current rage in evolutionary circles is the concept of rapid evolution, or “punctuated equilibrium—proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly and left no fossils. But where is the evidence that they evolved at all?
Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps in particular that should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single-cell organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (which contain the first appearance of varied multi-cell life), sponges, clams, trilobites, starfish, etc., are found without the required evolutionary ancestors.
The gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, which insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.
The evidence for creation is so strong, it is illogical to believe anything else. Only a religious commitment to atheism, or a desire for the approval of those atheists who call themselves scholars, could lead one down this path. The Bible says that those who deny creation are “without excuse (Romans 1:20).
The Biggest Problems for Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
You are right about the census business being evidence free speculation. There is no evidence, therefore to claim that it did exist is, indeed, evidence free & based on simple hearsay, which in itself has contradictory statements.
Twisting my words will not change the fact that I gave evidence for the census.
You say that Jesus was the Son of God, yet according to your Bible, he denied that. Do you, therefore, dispute the word of Jesus, or are you simply saying that the Bible is lying? It has to be one or the other. The 2 options are in conflict.
Get your facts straight. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God on several occasions. For example:
Luke 22:70 Then they all said, "Are You then the Son of God?" So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."
John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?"
John 10:36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."
Wrong! No transitional fossils have been found among the millions of fossils that have been examined. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
The Biggest Problems for Evolution
The design of living things has always been a huge problem for evolutionists. Even the simplest single-cell organism is unimaginably complex, with scores of highly sophisticated parts, all performing important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely arranged amino acids.
And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working parts of a cell. When it is recognized that all of these parts must be present and functioning at the start, it must be admitted that life is impossible without an Intelligent Designer. Actually, every living thing gives such strong evidence for design that only willfully ignoring the data (2 Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance and natural selection. Every living thing, from simple bacteria to people, possesses the marvelous DNA code, which contains a library full of precise information, and without which life is impossible.
Another fatal problem for evolution—which, if it occurred at all, occurred in the long-ago past—lies in the nature of the fossil record, which is the only physical record we have of life in the past. As is now being admitted by my evolutionary colleagues, the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no undisputed chain of in-between forms has ever been discovered.
Each basic type is distinct in the modern world and in the fossil record, although there is much variation within these basic types. While gradual “Darwinian evolution has always predicted that transitional forms would one day be found, the current rage in evolutionary circles is the concept of rapid evolution, or “punctuated equilibrium—proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly and left no fossils. But where is the evidence that they evolved at all?
Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps in particular that should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single-cell organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (which contain the first appearance of varied multi-cell life), sponges, clams, trilobites, starfish, etc., are found without the required evolutionary ancestors.
The gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, which insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.
The evidence for creation is so strong, it is illogical to believe anything else. Only a religious commitment to atheism, or a desire for the approval of those atheists who call themselves scholars, could lead one down this path. The Bible says that those who deny creation are “without excuse (Romans 1:20).
The Biggest Problems for Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
You are right about the census business being evidence free speculation. There is no evidence, therefore to claim that it did exist is, indeed, evidence free & based on simple hearsay, which in itself has contradictory statements.
Twisting my words will not change the fact that I gave evidence for the census.
You say that Jesus was the Son of God, yet according to your Bible, he denied that. Do you, therefore, dispute the word of Jesus, or are you simply saying that the Bible is lying? It has to be one or the other. The 2 options are in conflict.
Get your facts straight. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God on several occasions. For example:
Luke 22:70 Then they all said, "Are You then the Son of God?" So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."
John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?"
John 10:36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512538 wrote: So you reject the findings of scientists? ...[/url]
You've never posted findings, or any peer-review science.
You have posted nothing but unsupported, out-of-context statements of opinion.
You've been doing that here now for nearly seven years and you still fail to prove (or disprove) anything.
You've never posted findings, or any peer-review science.
You have posted nothing but unsupported, out-of-context statements of opinion.
You've been doing that here now for nearly seven years and you still fail to prove (or disprove) anything.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512569 wrote: You've never posted findings, or any peer-review science.
You have posted nothing but unsupported, out-of-context statements of opinion.
You've been doing that here now for nearly seven years and you still fail to prove (or disprove) anything.
Wrong! I have shared information from scientists who have come to their conclusions by practicing science.
You have posted nothing but unsupported, out-of-context statements of opinion.
You've been doing that here now for nearly seven years and you still fail to prove (or disprove) anything.
Wrong! I have shared information from scientists who have come to their conclusions by practicing science.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512564 wrote: Wrong! No transitional fossils have been found among the millions of fossils that have been examined. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.
We've explained it to you before. The disciplines of Science neither prove nor disprove ANYTHING. They merely analyse the evidence. If it supports a theory, then the theory becomes stronger. If it doesn't then the theory is modified. You clearly don't even understand what the Discipline of Science is, so you are in no position to say what it has or hasn't done.
As I previously explained, every single life form on earth (including humans) are part of an ongoing Evolutionary process. Therefore EVERY form of life on earth is Transitional. Therefore EVERY fossil ever found is also Transitional.
We've explained it to you before. The disciplines of Science neither prove nor disprove ANYTHING. They merely analyse the evidence. If it supports a theory, then the theory becomes stronger. If it doesn't then the theory is modified. You clearly don't even understand what the Discipline of Science is, so you are in no position to say what it has or hasn't done.
As I previously explained, every single life form on earth (including humans) are part of an ongoing Evolutionary process. Therefore EVERY form of life on earth is Transitional. Therefore EVERY fossil ever found is also Transitional.
Science Disproves Evolution
Fossil Gaps 17
In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).
l. “It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled. Nilsson, p. 1212.
“... experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting. Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), “The Nature of the Fossil Record, Adventures in Earth History, editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644–645.
“A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known. Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.
On pages 303–309, Davidheiser, a Ph.D. zoologist and creationist, lists 75 other forms of life whose ancestry is unknown.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512686 wrote:
Fossil Gaps 17
In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).
l. “It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled. Nilsson, p. 1212.
“... experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting. Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), “The Nature of the Fossil Record, Adventures in Earth History, editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644–645.
“A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known. Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.
On pages 303–309, Davidheiser, a Ph.D. zoologist and creationist, lists 75 other forms of life whose ancestry is unknown.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
The "Fossil Record" is not a book, or a well, maintained log of all changes that have ever happened.
It is simply a collection of bits and pieces of critters who, one way or another were caught up in various conditions, where their remains were preserved and usually converted to mineral deposits that reflect their former existence. The accidental nature of the preservation is part of the story.
The principle point that can be taken away from all of the "Fossil Record" is that there has been life on this earth for millions of years, and that life here, now, is quite different than it was millions of years ago.
Fossil Gaps 17
In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).
l. “It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled. Nilsson, p. 1212.
“... experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting. Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), “The Nature of the Fossil Record, Adventures in Earth History, editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644–645.
“A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known. Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.
On pages 303–309, Davidheiser, a Ph.D. zoologist and creationist, lists 75 other forms of life whose ancestry is unknown.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
The "Fossil Record" is not a book, or a well, maintained log of all changes that have ever happened.
It is simply a collection of bits and pieces of critters who, one way or another were caught up in various conditions, where their remains were preserved and usually converted to mineral deposits that reflect their former existence. The accidental nature of the preservation is part of the story.
The principle point that can be taken away from all of the "Fossil Record" is that there has been life on this earth for millions of years, and that life here, now, is quite different than it was millions of years ago.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512689 wrote: The "Fossil Record" is not a book, or a well, maintained log of all changes that have ever happened.
It is simply a collection of bits and pieces of critters who, one way or another were caught up in various conditions, where their remains were preserved and usually converted to mineral deposits that reflect their former existence. The accidental nature of the preservation is part of the story.
The principle point that can be taken away from all of the "Fossil Record" is that there has been life on this earth for millions of years, and that life here, now, is quite different than it was millions of years ago.
Why do you believe there has been life on this earth for millions of years?
It is simply a collection of bits and pieces of critters who, one way or another were caught up in various conditions, where their remains were preserved and usually converted to mineral deposits that reflect their former existence. The accidental nature of the preservation is part of the story.
The principle point that can be taken away from all of the "Fossil Record" is that there has been life on this earth for millions of years, and that life here, now, is quite different than it was millions of years ago.
Why do you believe there has been life on this earth for millions of years?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512690 wrote: Why do you believe there has been life on this earth for millions of years?
Because the evidence indicates that it has been.
Because the evidence indicates that it has been.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512707 wrote: Because the evidence indicates that it has been.
What evidence?
What evidence?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512726 wrote: What evidence?
Reasons To Believe : Biblical Evidence for an Old Earth
Reasons To Believe : Biblical Evidence for an Old Earth
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512686 wrote:
Fossil Gaps 17
In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).
Co-incidentally, the exact same link that LarsMac Has just given states exactly what I was about to point out in the very first paragraph.
The genealogies place a hard constraint that Adam and Eve appeared no more recently than 6,000 years ago. Since they contain gaps those genealogies cannot serve as timekeeping devices. However, it seems to stretch credulity to argue for anything much older than 100,000 years for Adam and Eve’s appearance on Earth.
Your perpetual claim that the fossil record has links missing & therefore cannot be accurate is mirrored precisely by the Bible, inasmuch that there are chunks missing. However, there is no way that you would ever accept that the Bible is inaccurate for EXACTLY the same reason. Furthermore, the very term "Fossil RECORD" states that it is not a fully comprehensive & complete list. It is merely a RECORD of what has been RECORDED thus far. These are RECORDS of pieces of hard evidence - collections of which are constantly growing. The Bible is stagnant & cannot grow. It claims to be a COMPLETE record, despite there being major chains missing. These are not even small periods - they are major gaps of indetermined length. By your logic, absolutely nothing happened between point A in that record & point Z. In the Fossil Record, taking point A as being the earliest fossil on record to point Z being the most recent, there are records of fossils from such points as D, H, M, N, R, yet you seem to think that because no fossils have been found from those missing points that they simply don't exist.
Consider this. Millenia in the future, archaeologists will be discovering the fossilised remains of humans, in massively increasing quantities. Suddenly, when it gets to the 20th century the number of fossils found suddenly drops dramatically. This might puzzle the archaeologist & he might come to a few theories as to why this might be. It could be, of course, that there was a massive annihilation of Biblical proportions of the Human Race. Yes - there have been wars, but this would still result in a major surge in fossils records of those victims having been found. It would be more likely that the life span of the human had increased up to tenfold, thus explaining the lack of bodies to have been fossilised. These, of course, might be logical explanations for very limited amounts of evidence, and both theories might be plausible, but unlikely. What might be far more likely, however, might have been the invention of the Crematorium. This would mean that far fewer bodies were remaining to undergo the fossilisation process. Now, I' not suggesting that life forms from millions of years ago had crematoriums, but there are also very precise conditions required for fossilisation. These conditions are very rare. The fact we find fossils at all is an incredibly outsider chance of probabilities - billions to one, but despite those odds, we know it happens, because we see the evidence. However, when the temperate conditions change - forcing life itself to evolve in order to adapt, so, too, do the conditions required for fossiliation. The odds become far more limited, so fewer fossils tend to be available, but the Scientist accepts this. He doesn't dismiss the fact that there were no lifeforms on the planet during this period. Imagine you have a jigsaw & you don't know what the picture is. You have a Red edge piece & you have a Blue edge piece. The Creationist would see this as being that the Blue edge piece & the Red edge piece go next to each other on the left hand side. The Evolutionist then find a few other colours & considers the possibility that perhaps those colours are not from the same edge after all & looks for more & more pieces. Gradually, even though not all the pieces are available, it becomes clear that the picture is that of a rainbow - gradually changing in colour from one edge to the other.
Fossil Gaps 17
In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).
Co-incidentally, the exact same link that LarsMac Has just given states exactly what I was about to point out in the very first paragraph.
The genealogies place a hard constraint that Adam and Eve appeared no more recently than 6,000 years ago. Since they contain gaps those genealogies cannot serve as timekeeping devices. However, it seems to stretch credulity to argue for anything much older than 100,000 years for Adam and Eve’s appearance on Earth.
Your perpetual claim that the fossil record has links missing & therefore cannot be accurate is mirrored precisely by the Bible, inasmuch that there are chunks missing. However, there is no way that you would ever accept that the Bible is inaccurate for EXACTLY the same reason. Furthermore, the very term "Fossil RECORD" states that it is not a fully comprehensive & complete list. It is merely a RECORD of what has been RECORDED thus far. These are RECORDS of pieces of hard evidence - collections of which are constantly growing. The Bible is stagnant & cannot grow. It claims to be a COMPLETE record, despite there being major chains missing. These are not even small periods - they are major gaps of indetermined length. By your logic, absolutely nothing happened between point A in that record & point Z. In the Fossil Record, taking point A as being the earliest fossil on record to point Z being the most recent, there are records of fossils from such points as D, H, M, N, R, yet you seem to think that because no fossils have been found from those missing points that they simply don't exist.
Consider this. Millenia in the future, archaeologists will be discovering the fossilised remains of humans, in massively increasing quantities. Suddenly, when it gets to the 20th century the number of fossils found suddenly drops dramatically. This might puzzle the archaeologist & he might come to a few theories as to why this might be. It could be, of course, that there was a massive annihilation of Biblical proportions of the Human Race. Yes - there have been wars, but this would still result in a major surge in fossils records of those victims having been found. It would be more likely that the life span of the human had increased up to tenfold, thus explaining the lack of bodies to have been fossilised. These, of course, might be logical explanations for very limited amounts of evidence, and both theories might be plausible, but unlikely. What might be far more likely, however, might have been the invention of the Crematorium. This would mean that far fewer bodies were remaining to undergo the fossilisation process. Now, I' not suggesting that life forms from millions of years ago had crematoriums, but there are also very precise conditions required for fossilisation. These conditions are very rare. The fact we find fossils at all is an incredibly outsider chance of probabilities - billions to one, but despite those odds, we know it happens, because we see the evidence. However, when the temperate conditions change - forcing life itself to evolve in order to adapt, so, too, do the conditions required for fossiliation. The odds become far more limited, so fewer fossils tend to be available, but the Scientist accepts this. He doesn't dismiss the fact that there were no lifeforms on the planet during this period. Imagine you have a jigsaw & you don't know what the picture is. You have a Red edge piece & you have a Blue edge piece. The Creationist would see this as being that the Blue edge piece & the Red edge piece go next to each other on the left hand side. The Evolutionist then find a few other colours & considers the possibility that perhaps those colours are not from the same edge after all & looks for more & more pieces. Gradually, even though not all the pieces are available, it becomes clear that the picture is that of a rainbow - gradually changing in colour from one edge to the other.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512750 wrote: Co-incidentally, the exact same link that LarsMac Has just given states exactly what I was about to point out in the very first paragraph.
Your perpetual claim that the fossil record has links missing & therefore cannot be accurate is mirrored precisely by the Bible, inasmuch that there are chunks missing. However, there is no way that you would ever accept that the Bible is inaccurate for EXACTLY the same reason. Furthermore, the very term "Fossil RECORD" states that it is not a fully comprehensive & complete list. It is merely a RECORD of what has been RECORDED thus far. These are RECORDS of pieces of hard evidence - collections of which are constantly growing. The Bible is stagnant & cannot grow. It claims to be a COMPLETE record, despite there being major chains missing. These are not even small periods - they are major gaps of indetermined length. By your logic, absolutely nothing happened between point A in that record & point Z. In the Fossil Record, taking point A as being the earliest fossil on record to point Z being the most recent, there are records of fossils from such points as D, H, M, N, R, yet you seem to think that because no fossils have been found from those missing points that they simply don't exist.
Consider this. Millenia in the future, archaeologists will be discovering the fossilised remains of humans, in massively increasing quantities. Suddenly, when it gets to the 20th century the number of fossils found suddenly drops dramatically. This might puzzle the archaeologist & he might come to a few theories as to why this might be. It could be, of course, that there was a massive annihilation of Biblical proportions of the Human Race. Yes - there have been wars, but this would still result in a major surge in fossils records of those victims having been found. It would be more likely that the life span of the human had increased up to tenfold, thus explaining the lack of bodies to have been fossilised. These, of course, might be logical explanations for very limited amounts of evidence, and both theories might be plausible, but unlikely. What might be far more likely, however, might have been the invention of the Crematorium. This would mean that far fewer bodies were remaining to undergo the fossilisation process. Now, I' not suggesting that life forms from millions of years ago had crematoriums, but there are also very precise conditions required for fossilisation. These conditions are very rare. The fact we find fossils at all is an incredibly outsider chance of probabilities - billions to one, but despite those odds, we know it happens, because we see the evidence. However, when the temperate conditions change - forcing life itself to evolve in order to adapt, so, too, do the conditions required for fossiliation. The odds become far more limited, so fewer fossils tend to be available, but the Scientist accepts this. He doesn't dismiss the fact that there were no lifeforms on the planet during this period. Imagine you have a jigsaw & you don't know what the picture is. You have a Red edge piece & you have a Blue edge piece. The Creationist would see this as being that the Blue edge piece & the Red edge piece go next to each other on the left hand side. The Evolutionist then find a few other colours & considers the possibility that perhaps those colours are not from the same edge after all & looks for more & more pieces. Gradually, even though not all the pieces are available, it becomes clear that the picture is that of a rainbow - gradually changing in colour from one edge to the other.
After examining millions of fossils and not finding one transitional, it is safe to assume there are none.
Your perpetual claim that the fossil record has links missing & therefore cannot be accurate is mirrored precisely by the Bible, inasmuch that there are chunks missing. However, there is no way that you would ever accept that the Bible is inaccurate for EXACTLY the same reason. Furthermore, the very term "Fossil RECORD" states that it is not a fully comprehensive & complete list. It is merely a RECORD of what has been RECORDED thus far. These are RECORDS of pieces of hard evidence - collections of which are constantly growing. The Bible is stagnant & cannot grow. It claims to be a COMPLETE record, despite there being major chains missing. These are not even small periods - they are major gaps of indetermined length. By your logic, absolutely nothing happened between point A in that record & point Z. In the Fossil Record, taking point A as being the earliest fossil on record to point Z being the most recent, there are records of fossils from such points as D, H, M, N, R, yet you seem to think that because no fossils have been found from those missing points that they simply don't exist.
Consider this. Millenia in the future, archaeologists will be discovering the fossilised remains of humans, in massively increasing quantities. Suddenly, when it gets to the 20th century the number of fossils found suddenly drops dramatically. This might puzzle the archaeologist & he might come to a few theories as to why this might be. It could be, of course, that there was a massive annihilation of Biblical proportions of the Human Race. Yes - there have been wars, but this would still result in a major surge in fossils records of those victims having been found. It would be more likely that the life span of the human had increased up to tenfold, thus explaining the lack of bodies to have been fossilised. These, of course, might be logical explanations for very limited amounts of evidence, and both theories might be plausible, but unlikely. What might be far more likely, however, might have been the invention of the Crematorium. This would mean that far fewer bodies were remaining to undergo the fossilisation process. Now, I' not suggesting that life forms from millions of years ago had crematoriums, but there are also very precise conditions required for fossilisation. These conditions are very rare. The fact we find fossils at all is an incredibly outsider chance of probabilities - billions to one, but despite those odds, we know it happens, because we see the evidence. However, when the temperate conditions change - forcing life itself to evolve in order to adapt, so, too, do the conditions required for fossiliation. The odds become far more limited, so fewer fossils tend to be available, but the Scientist accepts this. He doesn't dismiss the fact that there were no lifeforms on the planet during this period. Imagine you have a jigsaw & you don't know what the picture is. You have a Red edge piece & you have a Blue edge piece. The Creationist would see this as being that the Blue edge piece & the Red edge piece go next to each other on the left hand side. The Evolutionist then find a few other colours & considers the possibility that perhaps those colours are not from the same edge after all & looks for more & more pieces. Gradually, even though not all the pieces are available, it becomes clear that the picture is that of a rainbow - gradually changing in colour from one edge to the other.
After examining millions of fossils and not finding one transitional, it is safe to assume there are none.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512773 wrote: After examining millions of fossils and not finding one transitional, it is safe to assume there are none.
You've personally examined millions of fossils?
Ever heard of Eohippus?
You've personally examined millions of fossils?
Ever heard of Eohippus?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by Pahu
After examining millions of fossils and not finding one transitional, it is safe to assume there are none.
LarsMac;1512776 wrote: You've personally examined millions of fossils?
No, but they have been examined by scientists and not one transition has been found.
Ever heard of Eohippus?
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
The Mythical Horse Series
Horse evolution prominently appears in textbooks as a supreme example of the evolution of one body style into another. All students remember the "horse series" sketches, tracing the development of a small browser named Hyracotherium (formerly known as Eohippus) with four toes on the front feet and three on the rear, into the large one-toed horse of today. Intermediate steps included the three-toed Mesohippus, a modified horse with one toe touching the ground; the one-toed Merychippus; Pliohippus, also with only one toe; and finally our modern horse, Equus, who along the way had acquired high-crowned molars and other adaptations.
Of course, modern horses exist in great variety, with many unusual adaptations that allow them to cope with widely varied environments. Numerous species are recognized, almost all of which are known to hybridize. Obviously, there is a great deal of latitude in horse characteristics. Furthermore, various strains can be bred to accentuate one trait, such as the tiny horses about as large as a dog. Horses display a great deal of adaptability.
Early evolutionary theories hypothesized progress in a direct line from one type to another, and fossils were displayed within that framework. In recent decades, this view of directed evolution has been generally disavowed, and no particular form is now considered to have been the goal of "non-directed" mutation and natural selection. Once free to examine the data without this "directed" overprint, evolutionary scientists were quick to recognize that changes among horses had been abundant, extensive, and unpredictable.
[continue]
After examining millions of fossils and not finding one transitional, it is safe to assume there are none.
LarsMac;1512776 wrote: You've personally examined millions of fossils?
No, but they have been examined by scientists and not one transition has been found.
Ever heard of Eohippus?
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
The Mythical Horse Series
Horse evolution prominently appears in textbooks as a supreme example of the evolution of one body style into another. All students remember the "horse series" sketches, tracing the development of a small browser named Hyracotherium (formerly known as Eohippus) with four toes on the front feet and three on the rear, into the large one-toed horse of today. Intermediate steps included the three-toed Mesohippus, a modified horse with one toe touching the ground; the one-toed Merychippus; Pliohippus, also with only one toe; and finally our modern horse, Equus, who along the way had acquired high-crowned molars and other adaptations.
Of course, modern horses exist in great variety, with many unusual adaptations that allow them to cope with widely varied environments. Numerous species are recognized, almost all of which are known to hybridize. Obviously, there is a great deal of latitude in horse characteristics. Furthermore, various strains can be bred to accentuate one trait, such as the tiny horses about as large as a dog. Horses display a great deal of adaptability.
Early evolutionary theories hypothesized progress in a direct line from one type to another, and fossils were displayed within that framework. In recent decades, this view of directed evolution has been generally disavowed, and no particular form is now considered to have been the goal of "non-directed" mutation and natural selection. Once free to examine the data without this "directed" overprint, evolutionary scientists were quick to recognize that changes among horses had been abundant, extensive, and unpredictable.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Mythical Horse Series
[continued]
There are some things to note, however. During the same time period that some of the descendants of Hyracotherium supposedly developed into full-blown horses and elephants and other mammals, others persisted unchanged. It seems that evolution does not always change things--often it leaves them alone. Selection pressures that acted so strongly to produce major modifications in some life forms left others in stasis. Their fossils are found in the same strata intervals, so they must have lived in the same environment. Evolution apparently does not apply across the board. If a theory can accommodate any possibility, it is a weak concept indeed.
It is now acknowledged that horse evolution as recorded in the fossils follows no recognizable pattern, and that the evolutionary "tree" looks more like a multi-branching "bush." The successive forms indicating straight-line evolution appear only in textbooks; they do not appear in the fossils. Sometimes fossils of different types that supposedly lived at different times appear together in the same strata layer. In Oregon, the three-toed grazer Neohipparion (very much like Merychippus) has been found with Pliohippus. In the Great Basin area, Pliohippus has been found with the three-toed Hipparion throughout the timeframe supposedly represented. Evolutionary scientists freely admit this situation--and to their credit often attempt to correct the misconceptions--but still the horse series appears in the textbooks.
Any three fossils can be placed in a line and an evolutionary story can be told about the transformation of one into the other. And a different story could be told if the fossils were arranged in a different order.
It is interesting to note that Hyracotherium was so named because its specimens looked similar to the hyrax. This little "rock badger" can be seen alive in many zoos, complete with an interpretive sign listing its varied evolutionary antecedents. It looks very, very different from a horse, but most of its reputed predecessors could possibly be true variants of the horse. If you took the tiny three-toed ones out of the line-up, then the fossils would fit the creation picture, showing variety within a created kind.
The Mythical Horse Series | The Institute for Creation Research
[continued]
There are some things to note, however. During the same time period that some of the descendants of Hyracotherium supposedly developed into full-blown horses and elephants and other mammals, others persisted unchanged. It seems that evolution does not always change things--often it leaves them alone. Selection pressures that acted so strongly to produce major modifications in some life forms left others in stasis. Their fossils are found in the same strata intervals, so they must have lived in the same environment. Evolution apparently does not apply across the board. If a theory can accommodate any possibility, it is a weak concept indeed.
It is now acknowledged that horse evolution as recorded in the fossils follows no recognizable pattern, and that the evolutionary "tree" looks more like a multi-branching "bush." The successive forms indicating straight-line evolution appear only in textbooks; they do not appear in the fossils. Sometimes fossils of different types that supposedly lived at different times appear together in the same strata layer. In Oregon, the three-toed grazer Neohipparion (very much like Merychippus) has been found with Pliohippus. In the Great Basin area, Pliohippus has been found with the three-toed Hipparion throughout the timeframe supposedly represented. Evolutionary scientists freely admit this situation--and to their credit often attempt to correct the misconceptions--but still the horse series appears in the textbooks.
Any three fossils can be placed in a line and an evolutionary story can be told about the transformation of one into the other. And a different story could be told if the fossils were arranged in a different order.
It is interesting to note that Hyracotherium was so named because its specimens looked similar to the hyrax. This little "rock badger" can be seen alive in many zoos, complete with an interpretive sign listing its varied evolutionary antecedents. It looks very, very different from a horse, but most of its reputed predecessors could possibly be true variants of the horse. If you took the tiny three-toed ones out of the line-up, then the fossils would fit the creation picture, showing variety within a created kind.
The Mythical Horse Series | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512776 wrote: You've personally examined millions of fossils?
Ever heard of Eohippus?
Zero transitional fossils from one animal kind to another. Doesn't that tell you something? In order for a one species to evolve into another, there has to be an increase in DNA. The problem is that there animals don't reproduce increases in DNA only a reshuffling of existing DNA. Increase in DNA has NEVER been observed to happen, EVER. Even Richard Dawkins admitted it. That's why Darwinian evolution is false. The only mutations that you do see are within the species. Dogs remain dog kind. Cats remain in the cat kind. Humans remain in the human kind. Notice the different breeds of Dogs, wolves, kyotes, foxes, dingos, german shephards are all STILL just dogs. They never have a half breed of another other animal kind such as a half dog, half cat. NEVER. It's the same for horses. You have Zeebras, Mustangs, thorough breds, clydesdales, ect. They all remain horses no matter what the variance. All because it's impossible for them to evolve into anything other than horses. Evolutionists take these examples from within the species and try to apply it to say that one can evolve into another. It can't.
Ever heard of Eohippus?
Zero transitional fossils from one animal kind to another. Doesn't that tell you something? In order for a one species to evolve into another, there has to be an increase in DNA. The problem is that there animals don't reproduce increases in DNA only a reshuffling of existing DNA. Increase in DNA has NEVER been observed to happen, EVER. Even Richard Dawkins admitted it. That's why Darwinian evolution is false. The only mutations that you do see are within the species. Dogs remain dog kind. Cats remain in the cat kind. Humans remain in the human kind. Notice the different breeds of Dogs, wolves, kyotes, foxes, dingos, german shephards are all STILL just dogs. They never have a half breed of another other animal kind such as a half dog, half cat. NEVER. It's the same for horses. You have Zeebras, Mustangs, thorough breds, clydesdales, ect. They all remain horses no matter what the variance. All because it's impossible for them to evolve into anything other than horses. Evolutionists take these examples from within the species and try to apply it to say that one can evolve into another. It can't.
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1512780 wrote: Zero transitional fossils from one animal kind to another. Doesn't that tell you something? In order for a one species to evolve into another, there has to be an increase in DNA. The problem is that there animals don't reproduce increases in DNA only a reshuffling of existing DNA. Increase in DNA has NEVER been observed to happen, EVER. Even Richard Dawkins admitted it. That's why Darwinian evolution is false. The only mutations that you do see are within the species. Dogs remain dog kind. Cats remain in the cat kind. Humans remain in the human kind. Notice the different breeds of Dogs, wolves, kyotes, foxes, dingos, german shephards are all STILL just dogs. They never have a half breed of another other animal kind such as a half dog, half cat. NEVER. It's the same for horses. You have Zeebras, Mustangs, thorough breds, clydesdales, ect. They all remain horses no matter what the variance. All because it's impossible for them to evolve into anything other than horses. Evolutionists take these examples from within the species and try to apply it to say that one can evolve into another. It can't.
Precisely!
Precisely!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You totally evaded my point. As Evolution is an ongoing process, EVERY single fossil found is a transitional fossil. Each fossil found is merely a frame in an entire film. If you see a farme containing a picture of a caterpiller, then you see another frame with the picture of a butterfly and another with the picture of a chrysallis, no doubt you would say that these are all different species - and you could be forgiven for believing so, but once you build up additional frames you start to see the overall picture.
Your main problem is that you simply don't even understand what Evolution is. You seem to have the idea that it is something to do with, say, a horse changing into a tiger, when that is not how it works at all.
"Land animals took to the water, and swimming creatures came up on the land".
(Wisdom 19:19)
Your main problem is that you simply don't even understand what Evolution is. You seem to have the idea that it is something to do with, say, a horse changing into a tiger, when that is not how it works at all.
"Land animals took to the water, and swimming creatures came up on the land".
(Wisdom 19:19)
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512819 wrote: You totally evaded my point. As Evolution is an ongoing process, EVERY single fossil found is a transitional fossil. Each fossil found is merely a frame in an entire film. If you see a farme containing a picture of a caterpiller, then you see another frame with the picture of a butterfly and another with the picture of a chrysallis, no doubt you would say that these are all different species - and you could be forgiven for believing so, but once you build up additional frames you start to see the overall picture.
Your main problem is that you simply don't even understand what Evolution is. You seem to have the idea that it is something to do with, say, a horse changing into a tiger, when that is not how it works at all.
"Land animals took to the water, and swimming creatures came up on the land".
(Wisdom 19:19)
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. In other words, we came from a rock.
Your main problem is that you simply don't even understand what Evolution is. You seem to have the idea that it is something to do with, say, a horse changing into a tiger, when that is not how it works at all.
"Land animals took to the water, and swimming creatures came up on the land".
(Wisdom 19:19)
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. In other words, we came from a rock.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512830 wrote: 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. In other words, we came from a rock.
That's the dumbest definition of evolution that I've ever read.
Though I wouldn't go so far as to say science has disproved it.
That's the dumbest definition of evolution that I've ever read.
Though I wouldn't go so far as to say science has disproved it.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512831 wrote: That's the dumbest definition of evolution that I've ever read.
Though I wouldn't go so far as to say science has disproved it.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Cellular Evolution Debunked by Evolutionists
Perhaps the greatest problem for evolution is where and how the first biomolecules and cells originated by means of random processes.1 And if that problem wasn't substantial enough—essentially statistically and biologically impossible—a new discovery makes the odds even worse. Colonies of complex fossil microbes have recently been found that allegedly push the origin of life to at least 3.7 billion years into the past—a period of time thought to be unfavorable for life to begin.2
Fossils found by scientists in Greenland are now thought to be the oldest evidence of life yet discovered. The research team from the University of Wollongong just reported their stromatolite findings in the prestigious journal Nature. Stromatolites are biologically derived rocks formed by colonies of microbes that live in shallow marine waters. In fact, living photosynthesizing stromatolites can be readily observed today in the Bahamas and are thought to be the oldest living forms of life on earth.3-5
The original speculative origin of life for the first cell mystically popping into existence is thought to have happened about 3.5 billion years ago.2 However, this new discovery supposedly places the existence of complex photosynthesizing cyanobacteria about 220 million years older—putting the presence of complex microbes on the earth about 3.7 billion years ago. The problem is this was a time when our earth was thought to have been experiencing extremely harsh conditions unfavorable to the emergence of life and the thriving existence of complex photosynthesizing bacteria.
In light of this perplexing evolutionary dilemma, a science piece in the New York Times states that "the great age of the fossils complicates the task of reconstructing the evolution of life from the chemicals naturally present on the early Earth."6 The authors go on to more clearly state the crux of the problem, "It leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred and puts the process close to a time when Earth was being bombarded by destructive asteroids."
So not only is the emergence of life from non-life via random naturalistic processes completely improbable to begin with, now, according to the evolutionist's own reckoning, there is also no adequate time period for it occur.
This begs the question as to whether it takes more faith to believe in evolution or the fact that an Omnipotent Creator is the source of all life. The Bible clearly states the situation when it says, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
References
1. Tomkins, J. 2016. Life from an ‘RNA World'? Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org September 6, 2016, accessed September 18, 2016.
2. Nutman, A. P., et al. 2016. Rapid emergence of life shown by discovery of 3,700-million-year-old microbial structures. Nature. 537 (7621): 535-538.
3. Awramik, S. M., J. Sprinkle. 1999. Proterozoic stromatolites: the first marine evolutionary biota. Historical Biology. 13 (4): 241-253.
4. Reid, R. P., et al. 1995. Modern marine stromatolites in the Exuma Cays, Bahamas: Uncommonly common. Facies. 33 (1): 1-17.
5. Reid, R. P., et al. 2000. The role of microbes in accretion, lamination and early lithification of modern marine stromatolites. Nature. 406 (6799): 989-992.
6. Wade, N. 2016. World's Oldest Fossils Found in Greenland. The New York Times. Posted on nytimes.com on August 31, 2016, accessed September 18, 2016.
Cellular Evolution Debunked by Evolutionists | The Institute for Creation Research
Though I wouldn't go so far as to say science has disproved it.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Cellular Evolution Debunked by Evolutionists
Perhaps the greatest problem for evolution is where and how the first biomolecules and cells originated by means of random processes.1 And if that problem wasn't substantial enough—essentially statistically and biologically impossible—a new discovery makes the odds even worse. Colonies of complex fossil microbes have recently been found that allegedly push the origin of life to at least 3.7 billion years into the past—a period of time thought to be unfavorable for life to begin.2
Fossils found by scientists in Greenland are now thought to be the oldest evidence of life yet discovered. The research team from the University of Wollongong just reported their stromatolite findings in the prestigious journal Nature. Stromatolites are biologically derived rocks formed by colonies of microbes that live in shallow marine waters. In fact, living photosynthesizing stromatolites can be readily observed today in the Bahamas and are thought to be the oldest living forms of life on earth.3-5
The original speculative origin of life for the first cell mystically popping into existence is thought to have happened about 3.5 billion years ago.2 However, this new discovery supposedly places the existence of complex photosynthesizing cyanobacteria about 220 million years older—putting the presence of complex microbes on the earth about 3.7 billion years ago. The problem is this was a time when our earth was thought to have been experiencing extremely harsh conditions unfavorable to the emergence of life and the thriving existence of complex photosynthesizing bacteria.
In light of this perplexing evolutionary dilemma, a science piece in the New York Times states that "the great age of the fossils complicates the task of reconstructing the evolution of life from the chemicals naturally present on the early Earth."6 The authors go on to more clearly state the crux of the problem, "It leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred and puts the process close to a time when Earth was being bombarded by destructive asteroids."
So not only is the emergence of life from non-life via random naturalistic processes completely improbable to begin with, now, according to the evolutionist's own reckoning, there is also no adequate time period for it occur.
This begs the question as to whether it takes more faith to believe in evolution or the fact that an Omnipotent Creator is the source of all life. The Bible clearly states the situation when it says, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
References
1. Tomkins, J. 2016. Life from an ‘RNA World'? Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org September 6, 2016, accessed September 18, 2016.
2. Nutman, A. P., et al. 2016. Rapid emergence of life shown by discovery of 3,700-million-year-old microbial structures. Nature. 537 (7621): 535-538.
3. Awramik, S. M., J. Sprinkle. 1999. Proterozoic stromatolites: the first marine evolutionary biota. Historical Biology. 13 (4): 241-253.
4. Reid, R. P., et al. 1995. Modern marine stromatolites in the Exuma Cays, Bahamas: Uncommonly common. Facies. 33 (1): 1-17.
5. Reid, R. P., et al. 2000. The role of microbes in accretion, lamination and early lithification of modern marine stromatolites. Nature. 406 (6799): 989-992.
6. Wade, N. 2016. World's Oldest Fossils Found in Greenland. The New York Times. Posted on nytimes.com on August 31, 2016, accessed September 18, 2016.
Cellular Evolution Debunked by Evolutionists | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512832 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
I thought you were going to show me some Science.
But really, no wonder you are confused.
You've created your very own definition of Evolution, which you claim to have been proven false, yet you have offered no real science to prove, or disprove your definition.
So, all you've really proved is that your definition of Evolution has yet to be proved.
Well DONE, Lad.
I thought you were going to show me some Science.
But really, no wonder you are confused.
You've created your very own definition of Evolution, which you claim to have been proven false, yet you have offered no real science to prove, or disprove your definition.
So, all you've really proved is that your definition of Evolution has yet to be proved.
Well DONE, Lad.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512850 wrote: I thought you were going to show me some Science.
But really, no wonder you are confused.
You've created your very own definition of Evolution, which you claim to have been proven false, yet you have offered no real science to prove, or disprove your definition.
So, all you've really proved is that your definition of Evolution has yet to be proved.
Well DONE, Lad.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
DNA Was Created as a Reservoir for the Information of Life
For life to exist, an information system is needed to produce and regulate life functions. This information system must also be able to accurately copy itself for the next generation. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the information system for life.
Information is a product of intelligence, indicating that DNA came from an intelligent source (the Creator).
DNA was created with the information to produce proteins for cellular reactions and the ability to copy itself for the next generation of cells (and organisms) to continue life. DNA uses an intermediate, RNA (ribonucleic acid), to transfer this information to the cell machinery to form proteins.
There are several layers of information in DNA. DNA has the genetic code, or code of life, to spell out proteins, but the code is also arranged to minimize errors in protein sequence and structure, regulate the amount of protein produced in the cell, and assist proteins in folding into the correct shape.
Changes in the information in DNA are called mutations, which adversely affect the cell and organism.
DNA Was Created as a Reservoir for the Information of Life | The Institute for Creation Research
But really, no wonder you are confused.
You've created your very own definition of Evolution, which you claim to have been proven false, yet you have offered no real science to prove, or disprove your definition.
So, all you've really proved is that your definition of Evolution has yet to be proved.
Well DONE, Lad.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
DNA Was Created as a Reservoir for the Information of Life
For life to exist, an information system is needed to produce and regulate life functions. This information system must also be able to accurately copy itself for the next generation. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the information system for life.
Information is a product of intelligence, indicating that DNA came from an intelligent source (the Creator).
DNA was created with the information to produce proteins for cellular reactions and the ability to copy itself for the next generation of cells (and organisms) to continue life. DNA uses an intermediate, RNA (ribonucleic acid), to transfer this information to the cell machinery to form proteins.
There are several layers of information in DNA. DNA has the genetic code, or code of life, to spell out proteins, but the code is also arranged to minimize errors in protein sequence and structure, regulate the amount of protein produced in the cell, and assist proteins in folding into the correct shape.
Changes in the information in DNA are called mutations, which adversely affect the cell and organism.
DNA Was Created as a Reservoir for the Information of Life | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512859 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
DNA Was Created as a Reservoir for the Information of Life
For life to exist, an information system is needed to produce and regulate life functions. This information system must also be able to accurately copy itself for the next generation. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the information system for life.
Information is a product of intelligence, indicating that DNA came from an intelligent source (the Creator).
DNA was created with the information to produce proteins for cellular reactions and the ability to copy itself for the next generation of cells (and organisms) to continue life. DNA uses an intermediate, RNA (ribonucleic acid), to transfer this information to the cell machinery to form proteins.
There are several layers of information in DNA. DNA has the genetic code, or code of life, to spell out proteins, but the code is also arranged to minimize errors in protein sequence and structure, regulate the amount of protein produced in the cell, and assist proteins in folding into the correct shape.
Changes in the information in DNA are called mutations, which adversely affect the cell and organism.
DNA Was Created as a Reservoir for the Information of Life | The Institute for Creation Research
That is REALLY reaching, Bud.
DNA Was Created as a Reservoir for the Information of Life
For life to exist, an information system is needed to produce and regulate life functions. This information system must also be able to accurately copy itself for the next generation. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the information system for life.
Information is a product of intelligence, indicating that DNA came from an intelligent source (the Creator).
DNA was created with the information to produce proteins for cellular reactions and the ability to copy itself for the next generation of cells (and organisms) to continue life. DNA uses an intermediate, RNA (ribonucleic acid), to transfer this information to the cell machinery to form proteins.
There are several layers of information in DNA. DNA has the genetic code, or code of life, to spell out proteins, but the code is also arranged to minimize errors in protein sequence and structure, regulate the amount of protein produced in the cell, and assist proteins in folding into the correct shape.
Changes in the information in DNA are called mutations, which adversely affect the cell and organism.
DNA Was Created as a Reservoir for the Information of Life | The Institute for Creation Research
That is REALLY reaching, Bud.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
The Cambrian Explosion 1
The “evolutionary tree has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersed—worldwide (b).
a. “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.*348.
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. *Ibid., p.*344.
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Ibid., p.*350.
“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. *Ibid., p.*351.
“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time...The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. *Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p.*229.
Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Orient, Discover, April 1993, pp.*38–48.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512862 wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion 1
The “evolutionary tree has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersed—worldwide (b).
a. “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.*348.
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. *Ibid., p.*344.
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Ibid., p.*350.
“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. *Ibid., p.*351.
“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time...The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. *Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p.*229.
Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Orient, Discover, April 1993, pp.*38–48.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Still waiting
The Cambrian Explosion 1
The “evolutionary tree has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersed—worldwide (b).
a. “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.*348.
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. *Ibid., p.*344.
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Ibid., p.*350.
“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. *Ibid., p.*351.
“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time...The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. *Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p.*229.
Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Orient, Discover, April 1993, pp.*38–48.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Still waiting
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512830 wrote: 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. In other words, we came from a rock.
Actually, that's what the Bible says - not Evolution.
Gen 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Actually, that's what the Bible says - not Evolution.
Gen 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512941 wrote: Actually, that's what the Bible says - not Evolution.
Gen 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Looks like they're both right.
How cool is THAT?
Gen 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Looks like they're both right.
How cool is THAT?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512941 wrote: Actually, that's what the Bible says - not Evolution.
Gen 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
If the earth was once a barren rock from which life came, then according to evolution we came from a rock.
Gen 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
If the earth was once a barren rock from which life came, then according to evolution we came from a rock.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512963 wrote: If the earth was once a barren rock from which life came, then according to evolution we came from a rock.
From what I read, it started out all wet.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
From what I read, it started out all wet.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512993 wrote: From what I read, it started out all wet.
From the correct Biblical standpoint, which differs from the false evolutionism standpoint.
From the correct Biblical standpoint, which differs from the false evolutionism standpoint.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Biblical story is midrash and not physically true. Read as midrash and it has some lessons to teach us. Concerning the birth stories of Jesus and the so called prophesies the Bible is in error. The original Hebrew in fact says "A maiden has conceived a child> This was in the past tense or completed . The word translated ti virgin in fact has no sexual innuendo at all. It means a young maiden. What ignorance does eh!!!
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1513001 wrote: The Biblical story is midrash and not physically true. Read as midrash and it has some lessons to teach us.
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu wrong on all points. # 1 Is simply not true. Yes there are some archaeologists that think that way but the majority do not. They question the very existence of a man called Abrahan, The think that Moses is a composite character of many people. # 2 the Bible is not historically accurate, @ 3 I have addressed this issue elsewhere but will do so again. Prophesy is written about the then present time not some time in the distant future. These people experienced this Jesus of Nazareth and decided he must be the Massiah. Thus they went to the Old Testament to find things that seemed to ffit Jesus in some ways so for instance the Massiah was to be born in Bethlehem. Regardless of where Jesus of Nazareth was born he had to be born in Bethlehem even though he was born in Nazareth. These prophesies wer written about a different time. They are not prophesies fulfilled they are stories created to fit the ancient writings.. Thus your post is in error on all counts.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1513006 wrote: Pahu wrong on all points. # 1 Is simply not true. Yes there are some archaeologists that think that way but the majority do not. They question the very existence of a man called Abrahan, The think that Moses is a composite character of many people. # 2 the Bible is not historically accurate, @ 3 I have addressed this issue elsewhere but will do so again. Prophesy is written about the then present time not some time in the distant future. These people experienced this Jesus of Nazareth and decided he must be the Massiah. Thus they went to the Old Testament to find things that seemed to ffit Jesus in some ways so for instance the Massiah was to be born in Bethlehem. Regardless of where Jesus of Nazareth was born he had to be born in Bethlehem even though he was born in Nazareth. These prophesies wer written about a different time. They are not prophesies fulfilled they are stories created to fit the ancient writings.. Thus your post is in error on all counts.
You are in error on all counts. For example:
Fulfilled Prophecy: City Of Tyre
ARTICLE INDEX
THIS HAS BEEN CLIPPED FROM JOSH McDOWELL'S "A READY DEFENSE":
1. Tyre (E/274-80)
Ezekiel 26 (592-570 B.C.)
Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. "And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock"(verses 3,4 ).
For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army. He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a mound against you, and raise up a large shield against you (verses 7,8 ).
"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water (verse 12 ).
"And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken, "declares the Lord GOD (verse 14 ).
"I shall bring terrors on you, and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again,"declares the Lord GOD (verse 21 ).
Predictions
1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Nevuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre three years after the prophecy. The Encylopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 B.C.) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonians suzerainty." 43/xxii 452
When Nebuchadnezzar broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty. The majority of the people had moved by ship to an island about one-half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 (prediction #1), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT
The next incident was with Alexander the Great.
"In his war on the Persians," writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Alezander III, after defeating Darius III at the Battle of Issus (333), marched southward toward Egypt, calling upon the Phoenician cities to open their gates, as it was part of his general plan to deny their use to the Persian fleet. The citizens of Tyre refused to do so, and Alexander laid siege to the city, Possessing no fleet, he demolished old Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a mole 200 ft. (60m.) wide acriss the straits separating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines at the farther end. 43/xxii 452 (Prediction #5).
The Tyrians countered here with a full-scale raid on the whole operation, which was very successful; they made use of fireships to start the towers burning and then swarmed over the mole after the Greeks were routed. General destruction of the mole was made to as great an extent as the raiding party was capable. Arrian progressed to the sea struggle. Alexander realized he needed ships. He began pressuring and mustering conquered subjects to make ships available for this operation. Alexander's navy grew from cities and areas as follows: Sidon, Aradus, Byblus (these contributed about 80 sails), 10 from Rhodes, 3 from Soli and Mallos, 10 from Lycia, a big one from Macedon, and 120 from Cyprus. (Prediction #2.)
With this now superior naval force at Alexander's disposal, the conquest of Tyre through completion of the land bridge was simply a question of time. How long would this take? Darius III, Alexander's Persian enemy, was not standing idle at this time, but finally the causeway was completed, the walls were battered down, and mop-up operations began.
"The causeway still remains," writes Philip Myers, "uniting the rock with the mainland. When at last the city was taken after a siege of seven months, eight thousand of the inhabitants were slain and thirty thousand sold into slavery." 99/153
Philip Myers made an interesting observation here; he is a secular historian (not a theologian), and this is found in a history textbook:
Alexander the Great...reduced [Tyre] to runs (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock [prediction #3]-a place where the fisherman that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. 99/55 (Prediction #4.)
John C. Beck keeps the history of the island city of Tyre in the proper perspective:
The history of Tyre does not stop after the conquest of Alexander. Men continue to rebuild her and armies continue to besiege her walls until finally, after sixteen hundred years, she falls never to be rebuilt again. 21/41
You are in error on all counts. For example:
Fulfilled Prophecy: City Of Tyre
ARTICLE INDEX
THIS HAS BEEN CLIPPED FROM JOSH McDOWELL'S "A READY DEFENSE":
1. Tyre (E/274-80)
Ezekiel 26 (592-570 B.C.)
Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. "And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock"(verses 3,4 ).
For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army. He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a mound against you, and raise up a large shield against you (verses 7,8 ).
"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water (verse 12 ).
"And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken, "declares the Lord GOD (verse 14 ).
"I shall bring terrors on you, and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again,"declares the Lord GOD (verse 21 ).
Predictions
1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Nevuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre three years after the prophecy. The Encylopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 B.C.) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonians suzerainty." 43/xxii 452
When Nebuchadnezzar broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty. The majority of the people had moved by ship to an island about one-half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 (prediction #1), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT
The next incident was with Alexander the Great.
"In his war on the Persians," writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Alezander III, after defeating Darius III at the Battle of Issus (333), marched southward toward Egypt, calling upon the Phoenician cities to open their gates, as it was part of his general plan to deny their use to the Persian fleet. The citizens of Tyre refused to do so, and Alexander laid siege to the city, Possessing no fleet, he demolished old Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a mole 200 ft. (60m.) wide acriss the straits separating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines at the farther end. 43/xxii 452 (Prediction #5).
The Tyrians countered here with a full-scale raid on the whole operation, which was very successful; they made use of fireships to start the towers burning and then swarmed over the mole after the Greeks were routed. General destruction of the mole was made to as great an extent as the raiding party was capable. Arrian progressed to the sea struggle. Alexander realized he needed ships. He began pressuring and mustering conquered subjects to make ships available for this operation. Alexander's navy grew from cities and areas as follows: Sidon, Aradus, Byblus (these contributed about 80 sails), 10 from Rhodes, 3 from Soli and Mallos, 10 from Lycia, a big one from Macedon, and 120 from Cyprus. (Prediction #2.)
With this now superior naval force at Alexander's disposal, the conquest of Tyre through completion of the land bridge was simply a question of time. How long would this take? Darius III, Alexander's Persian enemy, was not standing idle at this time, but finally the causeway was completed, the walls were battered down, and mop-up operations began.
"The causeway still remains," writes Philip Myers, "uniting the rock with the mainland. When at last the city was taken after a siege of seven months, eight thousand of the inhabitants were slain and thirty thousand sold into slavery." 99/153
Philip Myers made an interesting observation here; he is a secular historian (not a theologian), and this is found in a history textbook:
Alexander the Great...reduced [Tyre] to runs (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock [prediction #3]-a place where the fisherman that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. 99/55 (Prediction #4.)
John C. Beck keeps the history of the island city of Tyre in the proper perspective:
The history of Tyre does not stop after the conquest of Alexander. Men continue to rebuild her and armies continue to besiege her walls until finally, after sixteen hundred years, she falls never to be rebuilt again. 21/41
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu with all due respect that is rubbish. Many so called prophesies are written well after the fact so they are not prophesies but additions to the stories.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1513050 wrote: Pahu with all due respect that is rubbish. Many so called prophesies are written well after the fact so they are not prophesies but additions to the stories.
False! Bible prophesies were written well before the facts as the post below shows. Check out the links in Bible Accuracy for further details and proof.
False! Bible prophesies were written well before the facts as the post below shows. Check out the links in Bible Accuracy for further details and proof.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Cambrian Explosion 2
“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age. Daniel I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna, Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7.
“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable? Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution, Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.
“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin. T. Neville George (Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow), “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective, Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5.
b. Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China. See:
L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans, Nature, Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225–228.
Jun-yuan Chen et al., “Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators, Science, Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304–1308.
Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.