(by 16 people)
The Issues With Evolution That They Don't Want You To Know About!
If you read my bio to the left, you'll see that I'm a Christian who was once an atheist. Even as an atheist, I saw a few problems with evolution. However, I used it primarily as a great weapon against Christians in debate. I was also a Biotech student, studying the field of genetics. So understand that I know what evolution is, what the "scientists" want you to believe, and the major problems with it.
I'm not going to discuss Creationism here at all, so as not to present intellectually biased arguments. This is a lens that is only about the Evolutionary theories and the major problems associated with it.
Please keep an open mind while reading this information. You are free to verify any facts that I present here with any honest source that you desire.
Before All Else, I Must Address This!
There are many atheists that claim that they were once Christians until they were "enlightened". Yet, they are hailed by the atheistic community as proof that God doesn't exist. This is a flawed statement as it assumes that no human should ever be allowed to change their views, or re-analyze their stances on certain issues.
If a pro-abortion woman, when presented with the facts becomes pro-life, does that mean that she was never really pro-abortion? No. It just means that once she realized the truth, she changed her position.
"...The Truth Shall Set You Free."
Where The Core Problem Lies - PLEASE READ FIRST
This is not necessarily a fault of theirs, but is rather the classic deception seen so often from evolutionary proponents.
Here is what I have observed:
They come on this page, they read the info, get upset, then huff and puff and leave a comment (many times not objective at all and simply childish and derogatory). What they say in there comment usually hinges upon the following points:
1. I don't have the correct understanding of evolution since fitness is defined by what survives better. It is simply based on what the environment says is better and my ideas are wrong.
2. 'Evidence' is presented, such as galapagos finches, anti-biotic resistance and so on.
The problem, my dear reader, is that both of these are tenets of NATURAL SELECTION, not organic evolution (descent with modification). This is the whole problem. All the evidence out there given for evolution is actually evidence for natural selection that no one has ANY controversy over.
Evidence for natural selection is presented over and over and sweeping claims are made that are outright lies. For example:
1. All genetic evidence points to evolution!
Total baloney. We haven't seen a single mutation that adds genomic information. We haven't seen a single instance where natural selection adds genomic information either. The vast majority of observed genetic evidence is stacked against organic evolution.
2. The fossil record testifies to evolution - another joke. The fossil record contains NO (yes, zero) indisputable transitional fossils. Even the most commonly cited fossils like Lucy (the supposed human ancestor) are comprised of bones found hundreds of feet away from each other and buried at different depths. The fact that this stuff is even used shows just how desperate the evolutionists are about coming up with anything that will affirm their humanistic religion.
3. The radioactive dating is flawless - Really? Then why is it that even volcanic igneous content that we KNOW is only 30 years old dated to over 1 million years when using various radioactive measurements? In fact, the same sample gives dates that are wildly different.
If I couldn't tell your age correctly, would you trust me to be accurate when I guess the ages of people we don't know the ages of? Not at all.
Yet again, evolution is found wanting.
The easiest way to get around this is through deception. The deception is giving evidence for natural selection which is common, and claim that it is the proof for evolution.
Another Evolutionary Blunder! :
History will recount how terribly fanatic humans can be about what they believe in. That's what religion without reason is. Let me give you an example:
The IQ studies done seemed to indicate that Asians have a higher IQ than Whites. Of course, the gods of evolutionary biology know exactly why, so lets turn to them! The mumbo jumbo they came up with is not even funny!
After spending months formulating theories about how the Himalayan dwelling places combined with variation in brain size and genetic errors and mutations and so on gave rise to the Asians who are smarter, it was discovered that the studies themselves were flawed, and in fact, the IQ turns out to be lower.....
So can it be? Would someone dare to say that the gods of evolution are wrong? No, not at all. That's religion people, disgusting downright useless religion where reason is scorned upon. That's all evolution is anymore. Professors shut their ears and scream on students if any logical problems with evolution are pointed out, because violation of their sacred evolutionary belief is a strict no-no.
So as you go through this lens, please keep an open mind and honestly think - do I really understand what evolution claims and what natural selection is?
The Evolutionary Biologists Worst Nigthmare - MicroEvolution!
Why I don't even discuss the questions about the beginning (genesis)
What most people do like to throw around as proof of Evolution is the simple MicroEvolution that we observe today. This is how it goes:
Today we have Maltese, Shiht-Zu, Poodle, and other toy dogs that didn't exist earlier. Hence, we witnesses a sort of speciation within dogs. The environment (us, humans) caused varied species of dogs to arise. This is microevolution. This is the same phenomenon that we witness in bacterial resistance traits. Supposedly, newer strains which are resistant to our medication have arised out of nowhere! This is again microevolution.
Okay, now while most proponents of evolution like to use this as a proof of MacroEvolution, it is actually quite the reverse. This is the greatest proof that we have today that the theory of Evolution is completely absurd and impossible. How, you may ask. Let me explain:
The key issue it addition of genetic information. You have to understand that no genetic information is ever added in any case of Microevolution. Genetic information is constantly being lost, not gained!
This is the complete opposite of what evolution states happened. If we truly evolved from just an organism with 4 genomic characters into beings with 30,000 genes (give or take a couple thousand based on where you get your information), then Microevolution is the complete opposite.
In evolution, we are more perfect than our ancestors. In Microevolution, we are less perfect than our ancestors! See the massive issue? Here's an example:
Let's say that the alien from the Predator movies returned to earth and started killing every human being. Now, the only way it recognizes humans is by the way they view things. All colorblind humans are left, but all the humans that can see in all the colors are killed.
This cycle is repeated 4-5 times. Now, eventually, what we have is a human population that is completely colorblind. This is an example of microevolution. They are all still very much human, but now they all are colorblind.
Let's look at what happened:
1. Genetic information was lost, not gained.
2. The humans are still humans, no speciation occured.
Now, this is exactly what happens with bacteria. When we put antibiotics into the mix, all bacteria with thin (normal) cell walls die out. All the ones with thick cell walls (not normal, makes them unfit), stay alive.
So What Does This All Mean?
1. Genetic information is either being lost, or stays the same.
2. We are therefore, going from a genetically better to a worse state. (sounds maybe like something called the Fall?)
3. We are therefore, not evolving, but actually devolving.
This is the only actual evidence we have that can be observed. The other parts of the theory of Evolution are believed on dogmatically (such as the beginning of life and universe). These are not issues we can debate. However, I will address some major issues of evolutionary beginnings here as well.
However, just to show you how many lies go unexposed, check out this graph that shows what evidence we actually have of human evolution:
Please Click On The Image For A Larger One
The Next Nightmare - The Origin Of It All
As I stated above, the beginning according to all evolutionary biologists goes something like this:1. Amino acids formed from random chemical mixtures.
2. Amino acids randomly combined to form RNA.
3. Some of it became double stranded RNA, rRNA and other semi-stable forms.
4. These forms were self-aware (alive...welcome to the land of the absurd). They eventually became what we would considered the simplest life-forms possible. Lower than even the virus.
5. Over a few million DNA came around, and more complex life forms became forming. (again, keep in mind, they are claiming that genetic information started randomly adding itself to organisms to lead to more complex life forms, something that we know is already wrong).
Each of these 5 steps are completely impossible. Yes, I said it, each and every one of these steps is absolutely wrong. This simply cannot happen. In fact, yet again, this is hypothesis that is completely opposite of evolutionary theory. Just like Micoevolution, this is evidence that is used to prove Evolution, when it is completely reverse.
How? Let me explain again:
Amino acids, RNA and other genetic material is completely useless, unstable, and pointless outside of a cell. As such, it is possible that a cell existed, and it could have, maybe over a gazzillion years evolved some sort of genetic material. However, the idea that genetic material evolved cells and organism is the stupidest thing ever! It'd be like stating that babies created adults so that they could come from somewhere!
Does it make sense to assume that babies made adults so that they could be born? Oh boy, sounds like some sort of weird time travel movie with baby geniuses.
The Third Massive Evidence Against Evolution - Multi-Component Organs
I spy with my little eye...an eye that disproves evolution?
Okay, let's cut right to it. Look at your face, and the world around you. What did you use to look at it all? Your eyes.Okay, let's check this out:
Your eye has multiple components that are all individually useless. They are also controlled by different genes, and they even have different kinds of cells associated with them.
Now, let's go back in time to a supposed time when the organisms didn't have any eyes.
Now all these organisms with no eyes are fighting to survive. Now an evolutionary biologist would have you believe, that the eye was a great addition (result of a mutation) that allows some of these organisms to become more "fit", and thus it became fixed in the population. Wow, that sounds great, right?
Not quite. The issue is that the eye didn't just appear one day! Since there would have to be multiple different mutations that would create each of the components, and then multiple mutations that would allow these components to be put in together, and then even more to interpret the signals being received that eventually became what we call "vision". The problem? Each of these mutations is useless and creates a being that is "unfit". For example, let's take an organism named Harry.
Harry's kind is blind. They can't see (like bacteria and stuff). Now suddenly, one day, a Harry with an Iris is born, nothing else. Only an Iris. This is unfit, since it doesn't help with anything, it uses more resources, and it is a problem in getting a mate. It is not fixed. Another one of the Harries is born with a lens, again, it can't be fixed. As in, there was never a being with an eye.
Now, let's assume that by some miracle a Harry is born with an eye! How in the world will this be fixed in the population, since this won't be considered an advantage over the rest? Neither will this lovely Harry get a mate.
Let's assume that by some great miracle two of them are born, rest of them die out, and a species with eyes is created. Then how would so many other species be formed with eyes as well? They couldn't be!
The issues with the evolution of the eye are much more than just what I've pointed out. And there are a whole lot of other organs that pose the same problem.
How The Eye and Mousetrap say the Same Thing!
And the airplane too!
Some might have questions regarding the "eye" problem with evolution. So let's look at the following analogy:Imagine a mousetrap. There are 5 parts to it:
1. A wooden plank.
2. A spring.
3. A sensitive metal catch.
4. A good bait.
5. A hammer.
If any of these is missing, the trap doesn't work, right?
Now, think of it this way:
If your house is infested with mice, which of the following would be beneficial to you:
1. having a wooden plank sitting in the garage.
2. Having a piece of cheese sitting in your living room.
3. Having a mouse hammer sitting at your kitchen counter.
4. The three combined with a proper catch in the proper location.
Obviously, only the 4th one will be effective. The others may even be harmful, such as leaving cheese pieces sitting in the kitchen.
This is the exact same scenario as the eye. None of the individual components actually offer any benefit. In fact, they're all detrimental to the organism since they consume resources without any benefit. Just like the mousetrap.
Hence, the eye could never have evolved.
The second issue is that there is the need of more and more additions to the genetic material to account for all these parts of the eye! Yet another issue that we know is completely opposite of what we actually observe.
Almost every respectable Biochemist today considers Darwin's work to be an oversimplification of what actually happened. There is no way that the extremely complex structure such as the eye or the cell itself could have evolved since none of the intermediate forms and mutations would afford any help at all to the organism.
Evolutionists say that this is not a problem and that the evolution of the eye can be observed simply by looking at the various developmental stages in squids and some other animals. The problem is that they are trying to (sometimes deliberately) confuse the issue. Pointing to these different specimens does not explain at all how the very basic functioning and interpretive optical system would come into being.
More or less, the issue is that an airplane needs the very basic hardware to be in place before it will fly. They are trying to show us a small plane, and then a bigger one, and then a bigger one, and then ones with extra accessories and saying that's prove of evolution. What we must understand is that the very basic plane needs to have multiple pieces AND a pilot who understands how to use it for it work. The same is the case with the eye and the brain.
Conclusions
We have the three parts of Evolution:
The Orgin - Disproved above. Even the hypothesis suggested by proponents of evolution are the complete opposite of what Evolution is.
The Process - We can see through the errors of Evolution in this one clearly through the observation of the cell, the eye and many other complex structures that are clearly incompatible with the natural selection process and yet again are completely contrary to the evolutionary process.
The end - What we observe today in MicroEvolution is yet again the complete opposite of Evolution. The fact that most of the biological sciences are based on such a theory is proof that there is far more dogma amongst the atheistic scientific community than they want the people to see.
It is extremely interesting to note that all three parts - the Origin, the Process, and the End Observations indicate something completely opposite of what Evolution suggests. Here are the basic conclusions we can draw:
1. The Origin - No chemicals ever became self-aware. They had to put in specific combinations to function in a specific manner. There is no point in even trying to believe that chemicals came alive, and then created cells that they could live in. And once they were in the cells, they became inert again and now cannot survive outside the cell. Not only this, but the complexity of the cell that we can note today due to the electron microscope indicates that this is impossible as well. Hence, these chemicals had to be put into cells which would then multiply. Secondly, there is no reason, or sense in debating that these cells then mutated into different kinds of cells that then became organs that then became alive and constructed organisms that the cells became a part of.
These fairy tales have no place in the scientific community.
2. The Process - We can clearly see that process indicates intelligent design like that of a mousetrap and an airplane. There is no way that complex structures like an airplane will just come to pass by random chance, especially when each of the individual components is useless by itself and must function in co-ordination with the rest of the parts to even be useful. The same applies to the eye. Evolution fails to account for this.
The Final Blow
We are constantly losing genetic information. Genetic errors are increasing. Diseases related to genes are also rising. WE ARE NOT TURNING INTO BETTER BEINGS.
What we find is that we are constantly going from a more perfect to a worse state. The antibiotic resistant bacteria, the poodles and the bald men say the same thing - Things were so much better at one point in time!
Yet again, we see that evolution is the complete opposite of observable fact.
Remember, scientifically, it can be proven that genetic information is never gained in speciation.
Theories must be based on observations, not the other way around.
Finally, just for the sake of putting this debate to rest, think about the simple fact that the Sun would have swallowed up the earth 10 times over in the time that it would take for life to have evolved as it is today.
Not only this, but the moon offers even more proof!
The Moon is moving away at nearly 4 cm a year away from the earth. This means that a 100 years ago, it was 4 meters closer. A 100,000 years ago, it was 400 km closer. The gravitational force is inversely proportional to the distance between two objects. Hence, the Gravitational force exerted by the moon would have been much greater than it is today. However, if you continue going back, within a few million years, we arrive at a position where the tidal waves would be so big that they would drown most of the land on earth!
Not only this, but further back in history, we would hit the Roche limit the Earth-moon system, where the core forces felt by the moon would be 160,000 times of what they are today. Essentially, the moon would be ripped apart (literally) at the Roche Limit.
The two best known celestial bodies - the sun and the moon also clearly prove the geological times scale today as fake.
The so called scientists will try and cook up tales like - oh...something from Mars hit Earth, and part of the earth got broken off and eventually became the moon. The problem? There is absolutely NO evidence. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. This is yet another made up story, just like the vestigial organ junk cooked up to set up false evidence for Evolution.
Think about what you believe and why you believe it. Stop living dogmatically. Start analyzing that the world tells you and you'll be surprised as to how much you're lied to everyday by them.
The Superstitious Theory...
And I'm talking about evolution here!
Since Aristotle's time (at least) it was believed that life is something simple. The complexity was not understood or even thought about. Darwin, when formulating evolutionary theories, was acting under the same superstition.
He did NOT understand the complexity of life at all!
Imagine if you saw a space ship with thousands of ports that have millions of smaller ships leaving and docking with different equipment and materials. The materials are then carried off to a part of the massive ship where it is assembled into bigger parts. It is then transported to a location where it is wired. Pilots are being trained for these ships in another area and they are called in to fly the newer ships being assembled. Remember, there are hundreds of ports with all this activity taking place all at the same time!
Would you EVER entertain the idea that a passing tornado created this massive ship and all of its parts in the perfect unison that they work? Give it a few billion years if you want, but this level of complexity simply cannot be created by random chance. You'd be laughed at for even thinking that in the scientific community.
Now consider that each and every individual cell in your body is just as complex as this...if not more so!
The problem is that the sheer complexity of even the cell was unknown to Darwin and his contemporaries. And so far today, the cell is just referred to as the "basic and simple building block" of organisms! However, the cell is actually far more complex in its working than ANY machine built by man!
This might be lost on you right now since you have been trained to think a certain way by the so-called scientific community. This complexity has resulted in many microbiologists and scientists to realize that evolutionary theory is completely unfounded as far as the facts are concerned!
Thinking Is Not All That Easy!
Especially when you're going against the grain!
The average dull witted brainwashed humans don't realize the incredible truths of evolution!
However, the reality is far different. Evolution is believed on in faith, since that's all that is taught anymore! And it is taught as fact WITHOUT explaining the evidence that is supposed to support it.
Think about this - and really think - why do you believe in the evolutionary theory? Do you have any actual facts to back it up that are clear and not disputable? Are you even aware of the actual facts or are you just basing your beliefs on what you were told and taught? That's not thinking - that's called blind faith.
Put the evolutionary theory to the test and you'll find that clearly it has some major flaws in there!
Other than the things I have discussed here, and the topics that I'll be covering soon (dating methods, fossils, and the age of universe) there is much more for you to explore and understand.
Finally, I appeal to you to think about this with a clear mind:
Why do you think that millions and millions of years is just a "short" period of time? It is in fact incomprehensibly long period of time! Can you think to a 100 years ago? The millions of millions years allow one to stick in anything they want in the millions of years! When I say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and most probably only 6,000 years or so, I'm labeled a "young" earth creationist. Think about this - 6000 years is a LONG LOOOOOOONG time. It's not young. The only reason we think this way anymore is because of how the media are promoted the "millions of years is like yesterday" idea.
THINK And Question EVERYTHING till you find the answers.
But What About The Progress Of Man?
You mean evolution of technology ? :)
Well, let's think about this again, shall we?
Evolutionary theory has provided a method of interpretation of evidence available to us, but it has not contributed to any evidence in itself at all!
Again, think about this.
What benefit has evolutionary theory provided us with today? Why is it labeled as a huge step in the progress of man and science?
Think about this.
Secondly, also consider that many of the most prominent scientists and intellectuals of the past have been creationists. You can look up the list yourself if you want on google or something.
Now, be very honest and think about what is this supposed progress of man that evolution has resulted in?
Genetics has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is used to explain some of the genetic evidence found, but it does nothing to progress genetics itself. In fact, it does quite the opposite. As I discussed earlier, genetics stands in stark contrast to what Darwinianism proposes happened. What progress are we talking about here?
If you know of something (or think something has been helped by evolutionary theory), then please leave a comment in the guestbook, and I'll be glad to look into it.
Of course, in some cases, Evolutionary ideas have inspired scientists as to where to and what to look for next. However, these scientists are inadvertently ones looking for further "proof" of evolution and their evidence is more often than not tainted to be in favor of evolutionary ideas. A great example would be how one of the "missing links" of the human evolution was created using a single tooth that was found! This tooth was used to imagine a jawbone, which was then imagined to be a part of a humanoid skull..which was of course - the transitional missing link in human evolution. Later the tooth was found to belong to an extinct pig. However, the charts and textbooks continue to promote this missing link despite what we already know.
This is the same case as Ernst Haeckel's fake drawings of the various embryos of different organisms to show that they all have the same ancestor. The problem? The errors were exposed in the 1880s and 90s over and over. Yet, the textbooks even in 1990 (and some even today)carry the same drawings as proof of evolution!
Zecharia Stitch and his theories...
First, it's important to see what he believes:
Dr. Stitch believes that an alien race appeared 450,000 years ago, and designed the human genome. All other species have truly just evolved, but humans were specifically created using the "Annunaki" genes as well (his interpretation of "God made Adam in His image").
He bases this on the Sumerian excavations and the artifacts made available from there.
His theory is that this is the beginning for religion around the world and the explanation of human existence.
(this is a short version of his beliefs).
Okay, now, I do heartily disagree with all this for some very clear reasons:
1. The evidence that I've pointed out above already shows that all the species in their basic genomic kinds would have to created. None of them come from primordial soup. That means all the creatures are unique, humans are just unique amongst them because of the capabilities of rational thought and much more.
2. Mr. Stich appeals to the advanced nature of the civilizations as a proof that they had outside help and didn't evolve. I agree. They were very advanced by the standards of what we would expect, since many of us are fashioned to think that our predecessors were bumbling idiots in animal skin. However, the Bible clarifies this as well - the people in the beginning were intelligent and started building very early on.
3. The issues already pointed out by many people - the problem with the wide orbit, and many others.
4. The Biblical narrative on these things :
I would like to point out that the Biblical narrative explains the history of these civilizations and their beliefs a lot better than Mr. Stitch and his theories.
For example - where do the "myths" of "gods" visiting the earth to breed with human women come from? Look at hindu, roman, egyptian, norse and other mythologies. Only the angels referred to in Genesis 6 explains this.
The global flood has overwhelming evidence (I'll go into details later in this lens) and over 300 surviving legends. Mr. Stitch fails to account for this.
These and more reasons lead me to believe that the Bible does indeed present the best explanation for the history of humanity.
And finally, how does Mr. Stitch account for the noted historical event of resurrection of Jesus?
What About The "Sunflower Eye"? Doesn't That Prove Evolution?
The Sunflower photo sensitivity is often combined with the "primitive" eye of the various members of the Squid family to encourage the idea that all of these are various stages of the evolution of the human-like eye.
The biggest issue that people fail to understand is that existence of "simpler" versions of an organ does not indicate evolution at all. For example, compare my laptop today that has inbuilt Video display card, inbuilt microphone, web-cam and some other nifty things with a "primitive" computer from the 1980s. Did this computer evolve into a laptop like mine on it's own? No it didn't. At all.
Understand the basis of the irreducible complexity argument:
Even the most basic photo sensitivity in a flower has multiple systems that must come into place together or else the whole system fails. Secondly, this kind of a "eye" would be useless for an organism that doesn't have the ability to use light to generate food!
Secondly, for evolution to work, each step from the flower-eye to the human eye must be brought in by mutations that are beneficial, when it simply isn't!!!
This argument is like me showing you a computer with an external microphone and claiming that my current laptop with the internal microphone is an evolved version that is more efficient. However, it takes intelligence for such manipulation which is exactly the point. An intelligence has manipulated the various structures and the biological machinery that is all creation in the world...and He left us a note telling us that to boot!!!
The second issue of the anti-bacterial resistance:
I fear you have misunderstood the point of the thick cell walls. The thicker cell walls are not beneficiary to the bacteria. This is not a "good" mutation and these bacteria don't survive as well in the environment. This is because the "information" within the cell about the wall has been messed up in such a manner that the bacteria can no longer get the proper understanding of it.
Here's an example to understand the information argument :
I like going to school on Mondays.
I like going to school on Sundays.
Note that the entire content is the same except one letter, but it has completely messed up the information that is to be discerned from this sentence. This information is permanently lost from the bacteria and it will continue attempting to go to school on a sunday and always find it closed down :)
I hope that clears up the matter a little more. Continue asking any questions that you may have about this. I'm more than happy to respond.
Oh, and please remember, that in the best case for an evolutionist, there is massive time that is needed for such steps to occur, and even longer for it be fixed in the isolated population.
Note the following problems with this:
1. All organic fossils obtained today still have remnants of C-14 which would not be the case if any of these is even over 50,000 years (yet, the claimed age is well over 60 MILLION years!). This indicates VERY strongly that none of the life forms found are older than a few thousand years.
2. As I discussed earlier, the Sun and the Moon clearly show that the age of earth is FAR FAR younger than what is touted by the so-called scientists.
3. The "helium clocks" that can be used to measure the age of earth by looking at the rate of escape of helium vs the amount of helium left in a sample shows the age of earth to be only 6000 years (give or take a couple thousand).
4. The earth's magentic field has been decaying very quickly. This gives the maximum possible age of earth to be only around 10,000 years.
5. The amount of sediments in the ocean show that the maximum possible age (if there were no sediments in the ocean to begin with) of the oceans of the world is only about 50,000 years. With the MOST generous evolutionary assumptions, it still doesn't exceed 42 million years.
6. The saltiness of the ocean -- the ocean is not nearly salty enough to be billions of years old. The most likely age is a few thousand years based on teh salt content of ocean water.
7. The spiral of our galaxy is still too loose! The maximum possible age of our entire GALAXY is only a few hundred million years, not at least 10billion that is NEEDED by evolutionary timescales.
Consider that all of these are maximum ages that the most generous calculations give. However, nothing beats an eye-witness account.
Let's say you walk into a kitchen and see the faucet dripping water into a pan. you could see that it is dripping at 1 ml/sec and reverse calculate how long the pan has been sitting under the faucet. However, lets say there's a note stating that the person who last used the pan ran the faucet full blast for 20 seconds and then lowered it to the 1ml/sec rate. Wouldn't that completely change your calculations?
The humanoid fossils and the moon...
The problems of evolution cannot be solved by believing it anyway...
1. All the fossils have not been mentioned in the little cartoon chart regarding human evolution above.
Specifically, that some other fossils like the Lake Tanaka have been left out.
2. Piltdown should be left out completely since it's a fake.
3. The moon's gravitation force doesn't increase by 160,000 when it's 400km closer.
4. Don't deny scientific truth.
Here are my responses:
1. I sure hope you realize that over 4000 humanoid fossils have been found over the last few decades. The reason most of these are never even mentioned is because a vast majority of them do nothing for evolutionary theories, and are in fact quite an embarrassment for the evolutionist. The couple more that have been mentioned are simply moot fossils with no bearing on the facts of it. Here's why - you can go and find that the aboriginals in Australian regions, some tribes in India's central region, and Congo tribes near the 'Swamp' all have remarkably different skull structure than Caucasians. These are humans that are alive today, and pretty smart too!
Many evolutionary proponents are slowly moving away from this argument and have left out the human evolution charts recently because of these very facts.
2. EXACTLY! Piltdown man should have never been included in the first place. However, at the first signs of a possible human ancestor, the evolutionists jumped for joy and included this fake in every book and paper they could. This is proof that these "scientists" were looking for something to affirm their faith, not for actual scientific conclusions.
Please think about this - all the scientists quickly jumped at the idea of the Piltdown man. Just like Ernst Heckel's drawing, which have been proven fakes for over 70 years, these people will use it to prove their belief system and religion of evolutionary humanism. There are many textbooks that still claim that Piltdown and Heckel's work is legitimate.
The point of including it was to EXPOSE the fake, not to talk about it's interpretation.
3. You're right Paolo. Thanks for pointing that out! What I was meaning to write was that at the Roche Limit of Earth and Moon, the force acting on the moon's core materials would be 160,000 times stronger that would rip apart the moon in an instant. I apologize for this error and will fix it immediately. However, the fact still remains that the moon could not have been created out of the earth materials since it would have been ripped apart. Additionally, it could not have been acquired later since that would wreak all sorts of planetary havoc...and remember, it's moving away.
Secondly, you admitted in this comment that you believe in the evolutionary theory of moon's origin DESPITE the lack of any evidence supporting it.
Please tell me, who is the one blindly believing here?
I'm not only providing reasons for believing the biblical account, I would also like another question. Why should I doubt the Biblical account on creation when it has been proven correct on so many historical and archeological findings? I do not have a reason to doubt the Bible, but have every reason to doubt the theories people have proposed over the years. Why? Because every few months to a few years another theory is propped up correcting the previous one or proposing something more absurd than before. The Bible has never changed in its text and claims about the creation of the universe.
There are two propositions made available here:
1. We have no evidence of this happening, but ...a bunch of gases became the moon, or an asteroid ripped out a part of the earth and became the moon...or the moon was acquired over time...or..
See where this is going? We really don't have a clue, but we'll believe anything as long as it has nothing to do with supernatural creation.
2. Based on the eyewitness account of Genesis 1, and the fact that there is no way to account for such a large and close unusual moon moving away from the earth, we must conclude that it was indeed God as He mentions Himself in the Bible who created the moon for the reasons that He created it in the manner that He created it.
As I said before, there are a bunch of other reasons to believe in Biblical creation. There is simply no other way to account for the following:
The Helium clocks.
The fossils.
The presence of C-14 isotope in EVERY organic material found.
Decay of planetary magnetic field.
Saltiness and sediments of the oceans.
Presence of complex organs that require multiple genes with multiple proteins and subsequent interaction to be useful at all.
The fact that mutations are increasing in human population.
Ice Age.
Remarkable evidence of a global flood.
The absence of supernova residues from the supposed millions of years (we only have enough for about 7000-10,000 years at most).
The absence of a tight spiral on our galaxy.
The correct way to understand the mousetrap and the eye...
understanding the eye just might open your eyes to the problems with evolution!
so here we have a simple mousetrap:
Now, we have already seen how we need the 5 basic components to make this work. However, most people don't realize that there are a few other things that are ESSENTIAL to the mousetrap, which are not even hinted at in the picture above:
1. MICE! - you need mice to exist otherwise the mousetrap is useless. ;)
2. Humans - who is going to be using this?
3. Wood, metal, and again people who would put it together.
4. A problem with mice - if there is no issue with the existence of mice, then we don't need the trap. I mean, how many people put up an iguana trap or a llama trap in their house?
So, let's apply this to the human eye now. Here are some things that are ESSENTIAL to the eye but are not even talked about:
1. A reason to see! 'nothing' cannot create a reason to see.
2. A brain that can interpret the messages received from the eye. Think about it. How useful is an eye if you can't understand what you are seeing...ever? It's like trying to smell the color blue! ;)
The point being, if you had an eye that can detect and report the various radiation signals around you (light), but a brain that couldn't make sense of it, the eye is a disadvantage to you, not an advantage. On the other hand, wasting brain capacity that interprets sight signals without an eye is just as much of a disadvantage. They must both appear together, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
There will be some people comparing this to plants or planktons comparing photo sensitivity to sight. This is an pointless comparison. Ever heard of comparing apples and oranges? Sight and photo sensitivity are very different things. A more proper comparison would be the primitive Squid family eye and the human eye (even though the human eye is far more developed). Even with the most primitive eye, you will need the essential things mentioned here.
3. A necessity for the eye - if evolution was true, why attempt to make use of a barely usable new organ, when it is far far far more likely that simply organisms with better sense of something else could be developed.
4. Even the simplest eye would need : Genes that would create proteins that would inter-twine to form more proteins that would create organelles that when placed in perfect configuration will be able to detect an EXTREMELY SMALL part of radiation out there. PLUS, genes that would form proteins that would multiply and form a complex nervous pattern that would then be able to interpret the messaged being received from this newly formed mess of protein and water.
Whew! We haven't even scratched the surface of all the background that would need to go into the most basic components of a mousetrap. I hope you can see where we are going with this! Think of what would happen if we tried to do the same with a computer today, which does not even compare with even a single cell that goes into the eye in terms of complexity! :) :) :)
And guess what...even the computer, even though incredibly more simple than even a cell needs a bunch of intelligent people to put it together ;)
I hope you are beginning to see how absurd it is to believe that such incredible creation just "happened" out of nothing, with no motive, and is going nowhere.
PorscheDoc's comment - The perfect example!
Wow, I think you need to review your science. Most of your arguments are the same lame ID BS. Almost straight out of the Discovery Institute's play-book. All of this has been debunked repeatedly and yet you persist in your lies. Arguments from personal incredulity are still arguments from ignorance.
Note the following:
1. He does not indicate at all what 'science' means. Hence the comment to 'review' your science is pointless and only displays the ignorance of Porschedoc. While I don't know what exactly he/she thinks science is, my guess is it means to agree with what the current dominant "scientists" are saying. Dear PorscheDoc, That's not science, that's called a cult, where a few control what the rest think and believe. That's what cults like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and others propose and do - a few control the rest - something that Jesus hates (read Revelations).
2. Calling it lame old ID BS. Okay, so how come you have no actual refutation of the same old ID BS? This is the classic evolutionary humanist cult's move. I've read a lot of evolutionary drivel (and watched some too), including that by the modern evolutionary "god" Richard Dawkins. All the arguments that they don't have a good response to, they use one of the following tactics:
1. hahahaha! it's the same old ID BS! I don't even need to respond. This is used when they are speaking to a primarily evolutionary audience that has already been brainwashed and won't question anything.
2. You need to review your science. ID is not science, it's a faith. This is used to refute an ID proponent in courts with pro-evolution judges, or amongst other pro-evolution audience.
3. Outright lie. This is commonly available in the general public domain as well. Some famous examples include the drawings by Ernst Haeckel (proven fakes for over 70 years), the Pakicetus (a creature imagined to be the transition between a whale and a cow when all they had was a couple pieces of bones from an pig-like creature's head) and many others that can be easily found. Nothing beats the obvious manipulation of the dates obtained from radioactive dating just to fit the supposed evolutionary dates.
This comment shows the nature of "scientific" discourse that most evolutionary biologists delve in. There are two basic assumptions that must support evolution or many forms of it - extremely long age of earth (this has been increasing since Darwin's date as more problems arise), and the lack of any intelligent interaction - that all the processes involved are completely naturalistic.
All in all, facts are completely ignored once it really comes down to testing a commonly held belief about evolution. It doesn't sound much different from the time that the Pope had everyone convinced that world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth (both of which are negated by scripture). The papacy of those days and the current evolutionary mindset of accepting anything pro-evolution without skepticism are nothing but cults on a global scale.
...Yet you persist in your lies.
Okay, let's see, by my own belief, if I was lying, I would be separating myself from God. Correct?
While you, if you were to lie, would be doing nothing actually "wrong". It's just a matter of how well your lies help you survive. In essence, if your lies help you survive better than my statements and adherence to scripture, then your lies are really better and should be considered the correct position to take. In such a case, in any case, you would not be considered a good witness due to your failure to present any case that you are not manipulating evidence to suit your own beliefs.
Essentially, these kind of nonsense is exactly what I was trying to avoid when I placed the disclaimer at top of the Guestbook:
PLEASE LEAVE COMMENTS IN THE SPIRIT OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE AND PROFESSIONALISM.
I'm not against proper challenge to my views and beliefs. There are many comments by people who disagree with me, but very few that approach the blatant unscientific drivel from this particular comment by Porschedoc.
What Do YOU Have To Say?
Comments? Questions? Arguments? Feeback?
Please let me know here!
Please understand that any comments using foul language or indulging in name-calling will be removed. If you have any questions or counter-arguments, please leave them below. Use multiple entries if you need to phrase your concerns properly. If needed, you can even leave a link to a website and I'll look through it as and when I have time.
PLEASE LEAVE COMMENTS IN THE SPIRIT OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE AND PROFESSIONALISM.
Ajl:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
you can do a search and find a whole lot more info. And note that I'm giving you secular sources, not creationist ones.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being condenscending. That's not the intend. I'm simply trying to refute some of the lies that are so easily spread under the guise of science.
Existence of God cannot be verified by imperical science, simply because it does not fulfill the falsifiability of hypothesis condition. On the other hand, the events in the Bible can be clearly verified scientfically. If it turns out that everything that God says in the Bible is true, then that in itself is a testament to existence and nature of God. Since no man could have known this stuff, then we have no choice but to accept that God indeed inspired the Bible and He is who He says He is.
The flood, and the age of earth are both verifiable facts using observable science. Read the whole lens to see some more information on it. Thanks ajl.
Posted March 09, 2008
Hitesh is doing a great work.i encourage everyone 2 visit www.drdino.com
go to downloads and see videos by Kent Hovind.
Lot of my doubts concerning evolution were cleared watching his videos.He really does a good job.The people asking hitesh doubts should just watch it....Maybe you will understand it better
Posted March 08, 2008
In your response to RZO, you state that "LIVE DNA has already been found on a T-Rex fossil and almost a completely preserved carcass of another one was recently found buried." I was wondering if you could point me to your sources for this information.
It's great that you're trying to get your ideas out, but I must take issue with the condescending manner in which you present all of your information. You rely on slippery, rhetorical devices to twist.
When it comes down to it, there is no more proof of a "great flood," or that a god created "it all" than there is proof of a mass extinction caused by an asteroid striking earth. Both sides of the argument are based on the same thing--faith. And we owe it all to each other to respect the choices we all make when it comes to faith.
Posted March 04, 2008
I have to thank you for varifying some skepticsism I was having towards evolution this past Summer after reading an article in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC that dates back to 2004. My THOUGHTS: When something different is born via mutation it is normally rejected by the rest of the species thus the gene pool dies out and there can be no advance. I came to this conclusion during the summer and everyone I've told has looked at me like I am an ignorant moron.It occurs though on any scale. Like look at a highschool. The shy, quiet girl, who wears the wrong shoes is outcasted. No one pays her mind, if all the highschool students were to find mates only amongst themselves, her "weirdness" (if it were genetic) would die out. Anyways continue contradicting the scientific community because honestly you have every right to. Very cool info. THANKS!
Posted March 04, 2008
Continued from previous comment...
So, what we see Adam is this:
All mutations are leading to a loss of genetic information, which gets fixed in a population if it promotes better survival.
No, I don't think you support Lamarck's idea. I was simply pointing out to you that without fixation, genetic information is not passed on in a population, which you agree with.
Not every radioactive dating is wrong. You are taking me out of context, we are discussing long-age radioactive dating. These involve assumptions that cannot be tested, as opposed to isotopes with short lifespans.
The Helium clocks use the same model as a short term isotope. The only difference is that escape of helium is not controlled by instability and since it is an inert gas that is fairly stable, we can test this over and over in various conditions making this a scientific model..something we can't do with long-age radioactive dating which makes it unscientific, and simply a tenet of evolutionary religion.
Posted February 19, 2008
Continued from previous comment...
mutations, even though they resulted in a fitter keyboard that is a variant from the original, was still achieved through LOSS, and not gain of genetic information (in this case, of the keys).
So:
If all mutations reduce the genomic information, such that:
Original (100% info) --> variant (95% info) --> variant (60% info)...and so on,
then how in the world does a simple 4 gene organism eventually give rise to a 30,000 gene organism?
It is simple inconsistent and contradicts the observations made! This is why I continue to make the case that evolution as a theory must be discarded since it is clearly contradicting what we observe scientifically.
The reason this has been confused for so long is because the evolutionists simply claim that it takes million and billions of years.
Problem with this:
If you are going from Iowa to Texas, but the train is headed north to Canada, you are not going to get to texas, even if it goes slowly over 10000 years.
Posted February 19, 2008
Not at all Adam. I'm sorry if you felt like I was attacking you. In fact, I'm simply exposing the hollow and unscientific results cited by these people. Please try and understand what I'm saying here:
Of course you can't personally test everything put out there by people, BUT, you can check their methodology and the consistency of their results. You can simply look at the assumptions made, and analyze whether or not they are reasonable assumptions.
For example - Kant comes up with a very coherent system, BUT, it's assumption is that the universe is a closed system. Something that he has NO evidence for at all. Then why even give him the time when the idea is simply unscientific to begin with and has no bearing in evidence!
The issue with genetics is carefully hidden. Clearly mutations cause variation - as in my example, a keyboard with 250 keys is different (varied) from the one with keyboard with 500 keys. However, the mutation, even though it caused variation and caused (cont..)
Posted February 19, 2008
Continued from previous comment...
If the offspring continue to reproduce for generations, then that mutation is now in the population. If another organism in that population has another variation (again, due to mutation) that benefits it and produces offspring (which produce more offspring), then THAT trait will be in the population as well. In this way, organisms can gain characteristics.
Your claim that every radioactive dating method has been a failure is absolutely false. Radioactive dating is a proven scientific method that (usually) gives fairly accurate results, and to completely ignore it is incredibly ignorant of you. There are countless applications of radioactive dating that can be observed, just use any isotope with a relatively short half-life and you can see how it works.
Posted February 19, 2008
Neither you nor I can test every scientific experimental result, it just isn't feasible. Yet you attack anything I have written that is based on the works of others. Have you gone and tested a helium clock or fossils? Or did you simply read the work of someone else and believe what they wrote? The sword cuts both ways; you can't accuse me of being unscientific while you go and quote the "scientific" works of someone else.
You also seem to think that I support Lamarck's idea of inherited traits, which is completely untrue.
I'll admit I don't know enough about genetics to explain deletions and such, but we know that VARIATIONS occur due to mutations. It's not an addition, it's a mutation. The result of this mutation can lead to a difference in characteristics of that organism. If this characteristic benefits the organism so that it has a better chance of reproducing, then that trait is "selected" for. That organism's offspring now have that trait and can pass it to future generations.
Posted February 19, 2008
Adam:
I hope you read the articles on here clearly, because some of your points just show that you have no idea what I actually wrote. In any case, I'll respond to your points here, simply because it tickles me to do so!
Posted February 18, 2008
COMPLEX MECHANISMS: cont'd
Since each element of the eye evolves over time, your argument of each one being useless by itself falls apart because each element simply doesn't pop into existence. So yes, each part of the eye is mostly useless by itself, but all the parts didn't just show up in their current forms, they evolved little by little in a way that they WERE useful.
Through this argument, I have also shown that these "improvements" would have helped the organism and refuted your claim that that each individual part by itself is detrimental and would disappear (because it was consuming resources without providing any benefit). On to the next argument...
Posted February 18, 2008
COMPLEX MECHANISMS: cont'd
The idea of an eye forming over billions of generations is completely plausible. If you think a light-sensitive cell (or any other different characteristic) arising via a mutation is improbable, how do you explain things we label as genetic "defects?" People are born with extra thumbs/toes all the time, along with a number of other "oddities," and those all come from genetic defects. What if one of those "oddities" is actually something useful?
I will use the eye to explain the mousetrap analogy. I have already stated that fully formed parts of the eye popping into existence is highly unlikely. If one of them did happen to form, it wouldn't help the organism survive and probably would disappear within a few generations. But consider this: is 1% of an "eye" better than no "eye?" I would have to argue that being able to detect some light, even the tiniest amount, is better than not detecting any light. 2% is then better than 1%, and so on.
Posted February 18, 2008
COMPLEX MECHANISMS:
First of all, your explanation of the evolution of the eye is absolutely ridiculous. An iris didn't just show up, nor did a retina or a lens. The odds of a fully formed structure popping into existence are exceedingly low. Most evolutionists believe that at some point (again, over many many years), an organism could have developed a light-sensitive cell on its skin (via a mutation). This is the first "eye." If this cell helped the organism find food or avoid predators better than other similar organisms (because it could "see"), then the cell would have been passed on to the organism's offspring. Then if sometime later that cell became two cells (via that same mutation), then that would be an improvement over the organisms with only one light-sensitive cell. This could continue for years, with accumulating improvements. Other features that further improve the "eye" could have arisen via the same processes (mutation/accumulation).
Posted February 18, 2008
ORIGINS: cont'd
Is it so hard to imagine that at one place in the entire universe, over the span of a million years on thousands of planets, molecules came together to form some sort of self-replicating thing? I'm no statistician, but I can tell you that the numbers make sense. As for amino acid synthesis, Miller and Urey showed it was possible in an experiment in 1950. They mixed methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen gas, then sparked it, and amino acids formed. It was later shown that even heat or UV light could be the necessary spark, both of which would have been present on an early Earth. So these processes are not completely impossible, as you claim.
Next topic (one of my favorites): the eye (and other complex structures)
Posted February 18, 2008
Like almost all people who reject evolution, you seem really against the idea of "over millions of years," There's plenty of evidence supporting the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years (uranium ratios in rocks, argon dating, etc).
You say we have never been able to reproduce the beginnings of life in our labs, but we have been tinkering with the "primordial soup" in our labs for less than a century. It is believed that the first "life" on earth started 3.6 billion years ago, 1 billion years after the earth formed. Even if the conditions are only right for 1 million years of that span (.1%), that's still 1 million years compared to less than a century. Then consider that these same conditions could occur on many planets spread throughout the universe (maybe not exactly the same, but similar), so take that 1 million years and multiply it by the countless planets that could potentially have these conditions.
Posted February 18, 2008
HUMAN EVOLUTION:
Overzealous scientists wanted to be responsible for making fantastic new discoveries regardless of the accuracy of their claims. We now know that Piltdown Man and several others were hoaxes and that Neanderthals are actually a side branch of human evolution. If people continue to believe this, then they're just being ignorant.
We are not going towards a genetically "worse" state. Evolution works on a relative scale, so most of the "worse" organisms are actually better suited to survive than their "normal" brethren. If an organism develops a mutation that gives it a better chance at survival over other organisms, then there is a higher chance that that trait will continue because the organism will have a better chance at producing offspring. Traits that are actually worse will not continue because they do not help the organism survive, even if these traits are considered "normal" by your standards.
On to the origins...
Posted February 18, 2008
1000 characters is way too short for this... I keep hearing these same arguments against evolution, and I can present evidence against every single one of them. Let's begin...
MICROEVOLUTION:
In your example with the bacteria, you say that the bacteria with the thick cell walls are not normal and therefore are "unfit." Fitness is relative to the environment. Organisms that best survive an environment are considered the most "fit," regardless of if they were considered "normal" or not. So in this case, the thick walled bacteria are actually the fitter ones, because they were able to survive the environment. What good is it being "normal" if being "normal" gets you killed?
On to human evolution...
Posted February 18, 2008
Sutocu:
you are not paying attention to what's actually happening - the bacteria were already anti-biotic resistant. You simply killed off those that were not resistant to the anti-biotics and that's why the subsequent generations were "resistant". Nothing was gained, nothing was changed. If you took 5 families to an island, 2 black, 2 brown, and 1 white, and then you eliminated all except 1 brown family so that 100 years later the island is inhabited only by brown people, does that mean they all evolved into browns? Of course not! that's absurd! that's exactly what's going on here. There is NO instance of bacteria gaining genetic info, only content, which is not info.
B) The amino acids that you are referring to from the Urey Miller experiment and all other subsequent attempts were - 1) formulated using chemicals and conditions not present in evolutionary time scale earth and 2) were right handed amino acids that are toxic, not left handed needed for life. Please check this out.
Posted February 06, 2008
Darren:
And how would you know that? Tell me how many actual documentaries and results of research you have actually seen. Or are you just saying this because that's what you think and will claim that it's scientific?
Here's an example : there is no Mt. Sinai! We've looked in the entire Sinai Peninsula!! The Bible is wrong!!!
This is claim that was so popular a while back. The issue is none of these (like you Darren) actually read what the Bible said - Mt.Sinai is in Arabia, not in the Sinai Peninsula, and the Bible is clear on this.
Another one was "there's no king david" until excavations revealed a whole lot of stuff about a King David of Israel...oh and what about he signet rings found in Egypt that carry the name "tribe of Jacob" on it???? Guess whom they belonged to? Someone with the status of the Pharaoh and belonging to the family of Jacob? Hmm...who could that be? Maybe someone named Joseph?
Posted January 30, 2008
Darren:
And how would you know that? Tell me how many actual documentaries and results of research you have actually seen. Or are you just saying this because that's what you think and will claim that it's scientific?
Here's an example : there is no Mt. Sinai! We've looked in the entire Sinai Peninsula!! The Bible is wrong!!!
This is claim that was so popular a while back. The issue is none of these (like you Darren) actually read what the Bible said - Mt.Sinai is in Arabia, not in the Sinai Peninsula, and the Bible is clear on this.
Another one was "there's no king david" until excavations revealed a whole lot of stuff about a King David of Israel...oh and what about he signet rings found in Egypt that carry the name "tribe of Jacob" on it???? Guess whom they belonged to? Someone with the status of the Pharaoh and belonging to the family of Jacob? Hmm...who could that be? Maybe someone named Joseph?
Posted January 30, 2008
Darren:
And how would you know that? Tell me how many actual documentaries and results of research you have actually seen. Or are you just saying this because that's what you think and will claim that it's scientific?
Here's an example : there is no Mt. Sinai! We've looked in the entire Sinai Peninsula!! The Bible is wrong!!!
This is claim that was so popular a while back. The issue is none of these (like you Darren) actually read what the Bible said - Mt.Sinai is in Arabia, not in the Sinai Peninsula, and the Bible is clear on this.
Another one was "there's no king david" until excavations revealed a whole lot of stuff about a King David of Israel...oh and what about he signet rings found in Egypt that carry the name "tribe of Jacob" on it???? Guess whom they belonged to? Someone with the status of the Pharaoh and belonging to the family of Jacob? Hmm...who could that be? Maybe someone named Joseph?
Posted January 30, 2008
Dave :
The analogy is perfectly sound - for a simple reason. We are told to believe that inorganic materials 'came alive' at some point in time. The evolving computer would simply be looked upon as one of the steps just before it 'came alive'. How would you define organic? Because graphite is organic as well. If you mean alive, then tell me where the distinction would be made.
The Sunday/Monday issue is a moot point. Information that is passed on won't be that different. Sure, I messed up by saying it's 1 letter, but the INFORMATION you gain from that content does not change quite that much. The point still remains the same. Focus on the argument, not pointless issues that do nothing to bring real debate out here.
Difference between fact and theory:
An observable recorded action or repeatable experimental conclusion is a fact.
The statements used to explain the fact are theories. If another observation contradicts the theory, the theory needs to be modified or changed. Get it?
Posted January 30, 2008
i think most of your ideas are original, but after saying you were a biotech student the amount of science you simply have wrong or have interpreted the wrong way is staggering. there are too many of these to point out in 1000 characters.
i will say that the fake evidence of evolution is probably accurate to your point. however, where you said they were just looking for something to confirm their faith... that is exactly what they were doing. this is the difference between theory and scientific fact.
there are two more things i wish to point out: a lot of your arguements are analogies which is a very innaccurate way of doing things. the evolving computer, for example, is a bad analogy because a computer is inorganic and is physically incapable of the chemical reactions required for life and evolution.
The final thing i would like to say is: please, check your spelling and what your putting down before you post it. there's a two letter difference between sunday and monday.
Posted January 30, 2008
i wont make the argument the the evolutionary theory is 100% sound and without error but it is way more reasonable in my eyes. and of you claim that archeology supports the bible i have seen nothing more untrue... many events have been proven impossible and sites proven to be off by dates of more than 100s of years... the bible was written after the fact as a conglomerate of stories to help control populus. the people that wrote it never thought who easily it could later be debunked. if that is your argument then that needs to be revisited.
Posted January 29, 2008
Upon reading your response to PorcheDoc which stated, "ID is not science, it's a faith," I have to disagree with you; Here's why:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
Posted January 24, 2008
I'd also like to see references for some of your claims. I've heard many say the world is only a few hundred years old. Why should I believe your "there is proof", when you don't show the proof.
Sorry for taking up much of your comment space :)
Posted January 04, 2008
2. The Origin
Step one has at least partially been reconstructed in laboratory experiments, and some of the amino acids have been formed. The fact that many of the steps seem improbable does not make them any less possible, and something that cannot yet be explained is not necessarily untrue.
Posted January 04, 2008
1. Micro vs. Macro
While genetic information may have been lost in the bacteria issue you mention, the fact that the next generation of bacteria had better resistance is an example of evolution. Not all evolution is towards more complex. There are also instances of bacteria gaining genetic info.
Posted January 04, 2008
I just opened my Christian Entertainment Lense. Check it out.
http://www.squidoo.com/christianmetal
Posted December 29, 2007
RZO, response to your comments has been posted below (after response to ryan's questions).
Posted December 27, 2007
What killed the dinosaurs? Evidence indicates a meteor collision. So then wouldn't humans have perished with the dinosaurs? This is the problem that Christians (and all religions) have to explain. The dinosaurs are a giant contradiction to their creationist beliefs.
Posted December 16, 2007
You wrote "paintings of dinosaurs of different kinds on cave walls". Because we found some pictures, this proves human/dino interacted? Using your predator example, this would mean that a civilization a million years from now could say the Predator alien was real, because we made pictures about it.
Posted December 16, 2007
I'm not an expert on color blindness, but if both parents are color blind, does that mean 100% that the child will be? If the kid could still be non-CB, then that means genetics are not lost, more like not currently active/visible and your predator example collapses.
Posted December 16, 2007
Antibiotics are basically toxins that destroy essential organs of the bacteria in most cases. An example of thick cell wall based resistance is Vancomycin resistance found in strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Please read what I've written again to make sure you understand what I'm saying! Thanks
Posted December 15, 2007
Riddlix, one of my fields of study was/is monoclonal anti-bodies, so I know a few things about the antigen-antibody interactions. You are mistaken in thinking that that's the most common way of antibiotic resistance though. Because antibiotics are NOT antibodies. They are completely different. cont.
Posted December 15, 2007
Bacteria express proteins on their surface, antibodies bind to these to trigger an immune response. Mutations in the genome cause antigenic shift changing the proteins meaning the antibodies don't recognise them and the bacteria are resistant. Nothing to do with the thickness. Check your science
Posted December 11, 2007
Ryan, I've posted response to your questions and comments below. Please be sure to check it out!
Posted November 29, 2007
And here are some rebuttals to your points:
Irreducible complexity: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
Human evolution fossils (including creationist claims against them): http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
The eye: http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1538464
Posted November 27, 2007
In micro-evolution, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics IS a decrease in genetic information. But it is an INCREASE in FITNESS.
So how does new genetic information arise? By accidental mutations in the copying of DNA. It is natural selection that finds if this new information is good or bad.
Posted November 27, 2007
Wow! I've never looked at Discovery Institute stuff. You fail to present a single rebuttal to the supposed lame ID BS.
"All of this has been debunked repeatedly and yet you persist in your lies. Arguments from personal incredulity are still arguments from ignorance." Applies better to you.
Posted November 16, 2007
Wow, I think you need to review your science. Most of your arguments are the same lame ID BS. Almost straight out of the Discovery Institute's play-book. All of this has been debunked repeatedly and yet you persist in your lies. Arguments from personal incredulity are still arguments from ignorance.
Posted November 16, 2007
Chibbe- Please read it agaian. The claim is not that genes are lost, but that genetic information is lost. If you don't know the difference between the two, you should educate yourself on that before calling me a liar (I've explained it more later as well, so just read on!).
Posted November 14, 2007
Garybarrie - change over time means there is a difference between what was before and what it is after. If A-->B and A>B, then the change is negative. Compounded over time, B is always smaller than A. This simple logic is the opposite of what evolution proposes, hence, evolution is impossible.
Posted November 14, 2007
All should be wary of arguments that rely on placing values on their theory. There is no progress in evolution, no goal. Mutations are neither good nor bad. Evolution is only change over time, in response to a dynamic environment.
Posted November 14, 2007
I actually haven't read most of yoour arguments, I got stuck at the first becasue your lying. Genetic changes does not necesarilly mean that genes are lost. And, have you ever heard activation and deactivation of certain genes?!? I sincerely doubt you've studied genetics in the last 20 or so years!
Posted November 14, 2007
I am amazed at how many people refuse to even listen to intelligent discussion. You made some excellent points here, quite a few of which I had not heard before. The moon one is particularly compeling.
Thanks for the article, I shall pass the link around.
Posted November 08, 2007
Luca - these are indeed FACTS. It doesn't take a degree to be able to understand elementary logic. Have you ever actually looked at something with skepticism that seems to come from a "scientist"? This is a pointless theory that has been propagated even though it doesn't explain evidence accurately.
Posted October 24, 2007
Luca - first, it's not 99.9%. Here's a list of highly acclaimed scientists that you may be interested in - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Secondly, it's not strange. The world has always been opposed to the gospel - broad road vs narrow road.
Posted October 24, 2007
Response To Adam
Complex organs - You spent quite a bit of time explaining how over billions of ears the eye COULD have evolved. Let's see how this stands up:
If I cut off one of your fingers, would your children be born without fingers? If you have a cancerous growth due to genetic defects, would your children with born with cancer? The simple answer is absolutely NOT!
The issue with a mutation is that it needs to fixed in a population. Without fixation, it simply won't happen. We're not talking about a single bacterium living over billions of ears adding stuff as it goes along. We're talking about actual lifespans here. Come out of your fantasy land, and let's actually be SCIENTIFIC about this.
Problem #2 - Genetic variability. I don't understand why you can't understand such a simple point. The FACT is that we have yet to observe a SINGLE natural mutation that is additional in nature! Do you understand what that means?
That means that even though these mutations MAY be positive and make the organism fitter for its environment, it is still DELETERIOUS!
Do you know the difference between negative and deleterious? Let me explain:
Let's say you have a keyboard with 500 keys. It takes to a very long to type a single paper on it because of the large number of keys. One day, the keyboard falls, and there's a mutation - 15 keys fall off. That is a deletion. Now you find that these 15 are not very useful keys to you. In fact, their absence helps you type faster. This mutation is beneficial to you, but it is deleterious in nature! Get it NOW?
Over time, more and more keys fall off till you are left with 250, making you much faster than before, but NO KEYS WERE EVER ADDED! Do you understand that single fact?
None of mutations OBSERVED (remember science)have EVER been additional in nature. What that means is that in the keyboard of the genome, no single key has ever been seen to be added. This lines up perfectly with the information theory that information cannot appear without interaction with intelligence.
Just to make sure that you actually understand this, let me repeat this:
You are RIGHT when you say that the mutations in the anti-biotic resistance makes it fitter to survive. That is completely true!
Now, forget about the effects, and lets look at the genetics of this.
The genome undergoes a mutation that causes the bacteria to LOSE information, not gain it. Note the difference between content and information here.
So here's the thing:
The loss in genomic information through a mutation just made the bacteria more fit to survive.
Now compound this over a long period of time:
Mutations make organisms fitter to survive.
HOWEVER, these mutations cause loss of genomic information.
Therefore, the pre-mutation bacteria would have greater genomic information that is codable -- genes (heard of them?) -- than the post-mutation bacteria.
Therefore, humans with 30,000+ genes cannot arise from organisms with LESS than 30,000 genes.
I sincerely hope you are beginning to understand the main issue here.
The issue of fitness depends on the environment, and is relative. However, the issue of net information present in the genome is objective. It either increases, decreases, or stays the same.
In every single OBSERVATION (remember science?), we have found the mutations to cause a decrease in this information. It is really not that hard. It's quite simple, but of course, if it was really presented this simply, then no one would be left with the excuse that others 'just don't understand evolution.'
Do you now understand the difference between genetically worse and physiologically worse?
The anti-biotic resistant bacteria is physiologically fitter because it can survive in the new environment, but it is genetically inferior in that in most cases, if the mutation is fixed in the population, the genomic information is lost such that we can't return to the original state.
PLEASE, TRY TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO INSTEAD OF BLINDLY BELIEVING.
Then you said this Adam:
Like almost all people who reject evolution, you seem really against the idea of "over millions of years," There's plenty of evidence supporting the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years (uranium ratios in rocks, argon dating, etc).
You say we have never been able to reproduce the beginnings of life in our labs, but we have been tinkering with the "primordial soup" in our labs for less than a century. It is believed that the first "life" on earth started 3.6 billion years ago, 1 billion years after the earth formed. Even if the conditions are only right for 1 million years of that span (.1%), that's still 1 million years compared to less than a century. Then consider that these same conditions could occur on many planets spread throughout the universe (maybe not exactly the same, but similar), so take that 1 million years and multiply it by the countless planets that could potentially have these conditions.
First - note how you clearly simply believe what is written out there without ever even once testing it out. Uranium and argon ratios? What nonsense are you referring to? There are over 350 claims about different ratios presented out there. Who will you believe? Oh, and did they mention that by simply altering the base assumptions, that have NO (Zero, nada, none, null, zilch) OBSERVATIONAL support or evidence. You can play the radioactive dating numbers game as much as you want. The problem is that every single test, ACTUAL EXPERIMENT, performed for radioactive dating has been failure. How, you may ask:
For example, if you collect residue of volcanic eruption and submit it for argon testing, you will receive dates ranging from 200,000 to 4 million years. Now, the problem is that you can collect samples from 30-40 years ago, of structures that you are aware of the date of, and these are the dates radioactive dating will give you. Why? Because of the base assumptions. Learn to be skeptical.
Next, let's see what happens when you look at dates acquired by non-radioactive dating:
Fossils - max found to be around 5500 years.
Age of River basins - max found to be 4300-4400 years.
Age of Deserts - max found to be 4300-4400 years
Helium clocks for net age - 6000-8000 years.
Virtually every single method of calculation that does not involve a base assumption gives a date of a few thousand years. On the other hand, the ONLY methods that use base assumptions give dates of a few hundred million. Guess who makes the assumptions? The person doing the calculation. Anyone see something wrong with this ? this is NOT SCIENCE!
Response To Ryan's Questions and Comments
1. Beneficial mutations - such as anti-biotic resistance. There are three things you need to understand about this:
#1 - This is not evolved. It is already present in some and absent in others. If you were to take a bunch of deer and water buffalo and place them in a sanctuary with a number of leopards, in a while all the deer will be gone and only the buffalo will survive. Okay, so did the deer evolve in the buffalo? Nope. The deer were just killed off. This is the same as bacteria with and without resistance. Now if you placed these animals in a area with drought, wait till the water buffalo is eliminated and then provide conditions in which deer flourish, the deer will survive better. We both agree on this - this is basic natural selection which the Bible discusses too. The problem is that this is explaining the survival of the fittest, not the ARRIVAL of the fittest. Just like the group of deer doesn't turn into cattle or buffaloes, the same anti-biotic resistant bacteria are not created out of others, they are simply left when the others are killed off. Where did they come from in the first place is the question.
2. We both also agree on the fact that it is because of lack of certain genes that anti-biotic resistant bacteria flourish in certain environments. This means that if were to think of the resistant kind as "more evolved", genetically, it is actually devolved. The issue you fail to see is that MOST mutations lead to loss of actual unique functional genes. So while it may have 5 copies of the same gene, it has no new unique functional genes. I could copy and paste this sentence 5 times, but no new information would be given through it. But I would lose the space for 4 unique sentences (in this case genes). So am I supposed to logically believe that a single strand of RNA eventually gained enough info to create a cell and then a human when the genetic evidence is clearly the opposite? If mutations are the driving force of all evolution, then what we are experiencing is genetic devolution. In essence, the creature before us would have more functional genomic information because MOST mutations lead to loss of infomation. If you were going from Canada to US, and for every 10 steps you take South, you take 90 steps to the North, you will only go further North, not to the US. Translation - even though we have witnesses 4 viable induced active instances of gained genetic information, we have witnesses thousands more ACTIVE examples in NATURE of loss of information like resistant bacteria, wingless beetles and so on. Do you see the point? Over thousands of years genetic information is being lost regardless of whether is is beneficial or not, not gained.
3. Natural selection works in specific environments. Not in global genomic systems. I don't think you are getting the point of information. Talkorigins does a very good job of clouding up this issue entirely because of the embarrassment it is.
POint #2 - Irreducable complexity - Phony argument from Talkorigins on this one. They are messing this up for intelligent people researching this stuff. Irreducable complexity's main point is to show that something fairly complex cannot arise without intelligent interaction. They are showing you simpler versions of the eye and claiming that since a simpler version is possible, therefore, it is evolved. Please think about this. How does this mean anything? A calculator is a smaller and simpler machine than a basic computer, which is not as complex as a Super-computer. Does this mean that it evolved from a calculator? Not at all. It means that through INTELLIGENT interaction, humans created the computer using the same basic principles seen in the calculator. The same goes for any machinery. Just because a chimp looks like a simpler version of the human body, does not mean it evolved in humans. Quite simply, it means that through intelligent interaction, God created humans on the same basic principles that he had created other land animals. Get it? The point is to show that intelligent interaction is needed, not that a simpler version is not available. I myself mention Squid eyes and other similar things in my arguments. Please go through them again.
Point #3 - Human evolution fossils. The only thing making them being counted as human fossils is the estimated age. Guess why they are given these ages? To fit the evolutionary pattern's expectations!!! Don't believe? Go and look up the sources of all this stuff on TalkOrigins. Also note that they choose to not include a massive number of more "fossils" that have been uncovered. As far as the calculations based on footprints is concerned...first I'ld like you to explain to me how exactly a footpath is preserved for over 4 million years. Second, many native aboriginal tribes in Madhya Pradesh (a state in India), parts of Australia and many other places have many of the attributes of these "ancient" fossils. If you were to find one of there bones which is not more than a couple months old with the fottprints, they would also be classified as ancient fossils with some ancient dates. you seem to be a more intelligent individial than believing on face value for Talkorigins has to say about this stuff. A vast majority of the fossils are not even reported and many are mis-classified in contrast to the evidence because of the pre-determined biases. Look here - The human fossils
More on fossils
Response To RZO's Questions....
RZO
What killed the dinosaurs? Evidence indicates a meteor collision. So then wouldn't humans have perished with the dinosaurs? This is the problem that Christians (and all religions) have to explain. The dinosaurs are a giant contradiction to their creationist beliefs.
Posted December 16, 2007
RZO
You wrote "paintings of dinosaurs of different kinds on cave walls". Because we found some pictures, this proves human/dino interacted? Using your predator example, this would mean that a civilization a million years from now could say the Predator alien was real, because we made pictures about it.
Posted December 16, 2007
RZO
I'm not an expert on color blindness, but if both parents are color blind, does that mean 100% that the child will be? If the kid could still be non-CB, then that means genetics are not lost, more like not currently active/visible and your predator example collapses.
Posted December 16, 2007
Post 1 (third post in this order) - You are mistaking what the meaning of genetic information is with expression of genes here. This is a very relevant question of course, and it's a good way to think of it as well.
What is being asked is quite simple - what is the cause of color blindness? Is something added to the based gene (in the DNA) or something removed. Then we need to ask what is the effect of this addition of subtraction.
Let's take a random example and the code looks like this:
AAGGTCGTCAA
Now since we don't understand DNA-speak the way cell machinery does, let's write this out in english for our sake. Let's say this genomic sequence says:
Turn the knob to the left.
Some deletions might look like this:
Turn knob to left.
Turn knob.
Knob left.
Turn left.
the to.
As you can see, none of these give any more information to the reader, and most of them actually confuse the reader or make it an unusable information. The same is the case with most mutations that cause deletions in the DNA code - they damage it in a manner that leads to some problem, like color-blindness where the density of color-recognition cells in the eye drops drastically.
Now, let's consider some additions to the above statement. Note that over 90% of the mutations are deleterious in nature.
Turn the knob to the left.
Turn the the the knob to the the the left.
Turn the knob knob knob to left.
Turn the knob to the left left.
Turn the knob Turn the knob to the left to the left.
Again, as you'll see, none of these add any actual INFORMATION that gives the reader any advantage. All it does is either confuse the reader, or over-emphasize the same thing over and over. This means that almost no genetic mutation brings about a positive growth in the information presented by the genome.
So let's say that you have a book that has 300 pages full of UNIQUE words. There are no duplicates. Now let's say that you want to mutate the book - as in change it. Your two options are :
1. Remove some of the words.
2. Repeat the words already written in there.