Here is a religious response. A non-religious one is coming.
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Why Evolution is WRONG!
Philosophy Opinion Keywords: CREATION, EVOLUTION, TRUTH
Source: self, and other freepers posts
Published: 09/03/99 Author: James E. Bancroft
Posted on 09/03/1999 10:51:00 PDT by RaceBannon
Here is the essay that started it all here. Enjoy!
Nothing is more important to a persons understanding of life and living than his own answers to the three great questions: where am I from?; who am I?; where am I going? This is an important issue for the last 100 years, for a system of belief, known as evolution has permeated our society and way of thinking. I believe in creation, not evolution. I believe either system must be accepted by faith, for neither fits the scientific model. For either to be a theory, they must be repeatable events, observable events. Creation as taught in the Bible was only observed by God and His angels. Evolution by definition, happened when no one was around, and then continued so slowly that no one would be able to discern that evolution occurred, therefore it is also a non-observable event. I believe that whichever belief you hold, when completely understood, will guide your thinking and behavior and ultimately determine your destiny.
When speaking of creation, I define creation as the definite and deliberate act of God causing the beginning of life and material existence of all things in the universe having taken place in a literal six-day period. Evolution I define as the random gathering of individual molecules and elements that by random, chance accumulation formed the material world, and through random, chance events governed by natural laws eventually caused a collection of molecules to become a living organism which in turn progressed through another series of random, chance events expressed over hundreds of millions of years governed by survival of the fittest to eventually appear as life as we know it.
" Where did I come from" starts the argument. If created by God, then we are here for a purpose, a part of a divine plan that God has for all souls in the universe. Our original ancestors disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and became separated from God because of their sins. God instituted the idea of sacrificing an innocent animal to take the place of death for the persons who sinned. The death of an innocent savior, Jesus Christ, fulfilled this need for reconciliation toward God.
If we evolved, then we are here by chance and for no other reason. This means that there is no divine plan for mankind along with no moral absolutes. If the evolutionist believes in God, it can't be a very powerful God if he had no hand in our very beginning and probably has no idea what our future holds.
" Who am I? ", deals with today. With faith in a creator God, I recognize that I owe my very existence to him along with my eternal destiny. In times past, God spoke to us through his prophets until the time of the Bible actually being written and then compiled as we have it today. Many times it is written that God's word is eternal, not conditional, and therefore is applicable to life today.
If evolution is true, then there is no objective standard to follow at any time. Morals become relative and, humanity becomes hypocritical when it comes to obeying laws. A new moral standard will arise someday and put out the old out-moded one. Mankind will be on one big ego trip psychologically, thinking itself to be better and smarter and more in touch with reality than any previous generations. Life itself would lose all important meaning with only instant gratification the driving force. Any logic-based system of morality would have no feet to stand on, for it would be based only on argument, not divine revelation.
" Where am I going? ", is the final argument. God told us that the only way to be with him at death is to base our salvation on the fact that Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross, taking the penalty for our sins, a penalty that we honestly deserve, dying for us so that we may live with him. Not in our good works, but whether we put our trust in the sacrifice that God provided for us by sending his son to die in our place. Sin was brought in the world by Adam, Christ died for those sins. If creation is true, then so is the fall in the Garden of Eden. If that is true, then we must need a savior.
If evolution is true, then where are we going? Existence of God is brought to a level of superstition, and along with that the need of a savior becomes ridiculous. With no Adam and Eve, and therefore no sin in the Garden of Eden who needs atonement? Often is heard how primitive life survived in a primordial soup, a kind of slime. From slime to man means, in time, man will evolve into a God-like state, having a superior mind and intellect. This divine man is as far ahead of us on the evolutionary scale as we are from the worm. Do worms go to heaven? Will this divine man wink at our beliefs in an afterlife?
As a child, we are told to obey authority figures like our parents and policemen. When we started school, those authority figures became our teachers and our principals. When we questioned the teachers and our textbooks, the final authority became the textbook author and the scientist; the all-knowing, objective human beings who would never steer us wrong because they had studied all the facts before coming up with their conclusions. After studying science myself for a few years, along with writings from scientists that refute another's work, I have arrived at my own conclusion: that as a society, we have become too willing to accept as fact what someone says about a certain subject because of that persons credentials and too willing to ignore our own doubts about these statements that are made because of our own lack of education in these areas.
One of these areas most affected by our easy acceptance of 'scientific fact' is evolution, and specifically, human evolution. Many scientists and farmers are aware that when two animals of the same species mate, their offspring will carry characteristics of both parents, yet be unique in it's own way. Scientists in the 19th century took this line of thinking further and reasoned that these inherited characteristics would make the animal more able or less able to survive, with the weaker characteristics eventually causing the demise of the offspring that carried the weaker traits, and the survival of the offspring that carried the stronger characteristics of the parents. Herbert Spencer, the founder of 'Social Darwinism', took these observed events and applied this logic to humans. Since the European race, (white), was obviously more superior to the African race, (black), in areas of speech, culture, and intelligence, Spencer thought evolution had to be the cause and used his brand of evolutionary thinking to influence many Europeans.
These evolutionary descriptions of cultural growth influenced Europe up to the time of Adolph Hitler, who used evolution to explain the differences and abnormalities of the 'inferior' races such as Jews, Gypsies, and Negroes. This type of thinking was also present in the United States where it was concentrated in the area of perpetuating our own apartheid system in the south. It is also the driving force behind Margaret Sangers push for abortion and forced sterilization of American Blacks in the early 1900?s.
These events happened because people listened to the authority figures instead of their own conscience. What was worse, these ?facts? of evolution were introduced into the public school system and taught as fact instead of as theory. Up until this time, creation was taught according to the Bible account in the United States, yet when 'science' stepped forward and said different, the die was cast. The Genesis account was put in doubt, and since no house can stand without a foundation, the historical accuracy of the Bible became questionable, along with it's importance in one's life.
Almost all evidence for human evolution is extremely questionable. Scientists theorize that we evolved from quadrepedal ape like creatures, (hominoids), into bi-pedal erect walking ape like creatures, (hominids), to eventually become ourselves. Many fossils have been found that are claimed to represent the various stages of evolution from quadruped to biped, yet there are 'missing links' between these forms.
Evolution demands that these missing links are authentic, for they would represent the transition from one group into a higher group. What does Charles Darwin say about missing links? " The main cause of innumerant intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the place of and supplant their parent forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so much the number of intermediate varieties , which formally existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geologic formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record." (The Origin Of The Species, chap. 10).
Here, Darwin states that if evolution is true, then there must be numberless intermediate links between species. Yet, Darwin himself admits that there are NO finely graduated links between these species that have been discovered. He then goes on to say that the geologic record is hiding these transitional forms from us. How could a belief system, based on unobserved events with no proof to back it up, become so prevalent in society? In the 100 years that have passed since Darwin, we have more than quadrupled the number of fossil species that we have found and these links still have yet to be announced. Why was Darwin?s theory accepted at all when by education he was not a scientist, but a theologian?
If these links were found, how would science know where to classify these fossils? Darwinian evolutionary change happens so slow that the changes would be so minute that it would be impossible to distinguish one species from another, let alone when one species became another.
Modem science has proven through the archaeological record that the geologic column does not contain these missing links or any evidence for gradual change via evolution. Do the evolutionists give up? Nope, they just change their theories.
Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has introduced his theory to explain the gaps between species. 'Punctuated Equilibrium ' is the new theory that species remain the same for long periods of time, and then through sudden, short bursts of evolutionary lightning lasting maybe 500,000 years or so, then reappear as new, different species. This theory explains the gaps in fossil record because there wouldn't be enough time for significant fossils to be formed in order for us to find them 5 million years later!
Darwin said his fossils were there but we didn't find them yet. Stephen Jay Gould says the fossils aren't there, that's why there are gaps in the fossil record. If I told you I did my homework, but the dog ate it, would you believe me? Once again, the proof, is that there is no proof. Evolution is such a fun theory, you can think up any zany idea from microbes on meteors to aliens with a mission to populate the universe and 'science' will back you up; but what happens if you say, " In the beginning, God......
Neither creation or evolution has ever been witnessed by man. Both beliefs must be accepted by faith. Yet, in order to know which belief is to be held, all evidence must be weighed from one belief against the other.
A literal 6 day creation cannot be proved exactly, but a sudden appearance of life forms on earth, as evidenced by the fossil record, would provide fuel in any debate against an evolutionist as to whether life evolved slowly over millions of years, or appeared suddenly.
Evolution, whether sudden, (punctuational), or gradual,(Darwinian), would require an appearance of life from non-life forms. Yet, is this possible? Spontaneous generation has never been observed. This was proved by Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister in the 1800's when we discovered germs. Life only appears when life already existed. This is called the Law of Biogenesis.
Another way to approach this argument is to refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin stated it this way: " There is no natural process, the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this means that energy will turn to a state of entropy, one of less complexity and greater disorder along with a lack of usefulness unless acted on by an outside force that is directing this energy by means of an ordered arrangement that controls this energy in a useful way. Therefore, the amount of useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately, the amount of energy available would be zero. Due to this fact, it must be understood that the natural state of any natural system is one of disorder unless acted upon by an outside force in an intelligent, constructive manner. Any system left to itself will begin to degenerate. If you clean your room, it will get dirty again. Any life form alive today will eventually die. Chemical compounds left to themselves will break down into their parent atoms. Energy that is directed into these systems in an intelligent manner can cause greater complexity in the organism, yet when the intelligent influx of energy is removed, the system will begin to deteriorate immediately.
Evolution would require that through random, chance processes, inorganic materials would gather in such a way to create organic materials capable of replicating themselves. This process would require immense amounts of time in order to occur, and not only time, but protection against destructive forces acting on the material that was to become life.
This process is the reverse of what we know as fact as far as the 2nd law of thermodynamics is concerned. Naturalistic evolution requires that through known, proven physical laws atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial ordered arrangements all by chance, and all without intelligent ordering of energy or information causing the change. Over the long periods of time necessary for evolution to occur, these early chance chemical combinations would be bombarded by cosmic rays, radioactive enough to destroy whatever is exposed. This raw energy is absolutely useless to these early chemicals because they have no means to process this energy in any meaningful way. Photosynthesis may be how plants process sunlight, but we're talking about a time before even the first cell; after all, plants have genetic information that programs certain cells in them in how to process this incoming light. Our first primordial cell would have no such mechanism built in yet to process ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, evolution cannot have occurred.
If by chance this pre-organic material formed on the surface of the earth, it would still find it impossible to become a life form for two reasons. Before the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere, cosmic rays would destroy all life forms on the planet, for it is oxygen that is Ozone, O3. If there was an oxygen atmosphere, which might produce ozone, then oxidation would occur and destroy whatever is floating around. These forces would be the most important factors on whether life would evolve here.
If a life form did evolve, it would have to evolve with many existing functions the first time. A life form needs a mouth, a digestive system, a method of locomotion, and reproductive organs. Just examining the extreme complexity of these mechanisms should stop the argument here, but lets keep going.
With who would this life form mate? This first living form would need to be asexual or have a mate, which was it? What is the proof of either? Asexuality itself demands a complex system of operation, a complex series of commands to initiate. Since we are talking about the first life form, it had to be asexual unless you also want to believe that not only did a life form evolve from inorganic material, but it?s mate simultaneously evolved right alongside, right at the same time, in the same conditions, with completely compatible organic operation.
What did it eat? Think, not only did this life form need a mechanism of ingesting material to be processed as energy, but that material had to be nearby. How could all these internal organs evolve by chance? Think, not only the internal organs evolved, but so did the nerve system that controls these organs along with the organism's brain along with the intelligence to operate these organs in a manner that allowed the organism to survive. If you don?t believe that was necessary, then you must also believe that some chemical process happened by chance that processed whatever came down the life form?s ?mouth? in a manner that was compatible with the organism. What happens to this energy while being digested? We call this excess material waste, and it is poisonous. How was this waste removed from the organism? How did this organism not only evolve with a mouth, but also with a method of releasing waste?
How did it survive in it's primitive surroundings? How did any intelligent information get to these important functional systems in a manner that was beneficial to the organism? What type of brain and nervous system evolves by chance? How did something as complex as the eye happen by chance? If the organism didn't have eyes, how did it know when to open it's mouth when it was time to eat? How did hunger pains evolve?
All of these things speak of intelligence. Without designed and coded information, a life form is useless. The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by intelligent information and commands that do not reside in the atoms and molecules of these chemicals. A dead body is dead; WHY? It has all the chemicals necessary to support life already existing in a complete form with nothing missing, right?
Let's suppose this life did survive. Mendels? law of genetics prove that variation can occur within a species, but cannot create a new species across phylum boundaries. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, such as the large muscles of a weightlifter to his son. Natural selection cannot create new genes, it can only select from existing gene information nation. Dogs remain dogs, and cats remain cats.
Mutations are now the only possible explanation for evolution, yet rarely has any mutation been Proven to be beneficial to any organism in its natural environment. Almost all observed mutations are harmful and many are fatal.. There is no known mutation that has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than any of its ancestors.
Over 80 years of fruit fly experiments involving 3000 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
What causes variation and change in life? DNA. DNA stores enough information to fill 1000 books, each with 500 pages of fine print. Even the DNA of a small bacterium is composed of 3 million units all aligned in a very precise meaningful sequence. It is a mathematical impossibility for a random chance arrangement of molecules to arrange itself in the form of a DNA helix.
According to Dr. John Grebe, "The 15000 or more atoms of the individual sub-assemblies of a single DNA molecule, if left to chance as required by the evolutionary theory, would go together in any of the 10^87, (10 followed by 87 zeroes), different ways. It is like throwing 15000 pairs of dice at one time to determine what specific molecule to make; and to test each one for the survival of the fittest until the one out of 10^87 different possibilities is proven by survival of the fittest is proven to be the right one."
Evolutionists claim the universe is 10 to 20 Billion years old. There is less than 10^17 seconds in 20 billion years. Even by a trial and error combination occurring every second from the beginning of time till now, there is still no hope.
Mathematician I. L. Cohen says, "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between evolutionists and creationists should have come to a screeching halt. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."
Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."
Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle agrees with creationists on this point. He said the odds that a cell is formed by chance is equal to the odds that a tornado going through a junkyard would create a working 747 with all instruments working. Science has discovered no proof that animals or plants can evolve. The best established facts of genetics, biology, and botany studies indicate evolution is physically impossible.
Let's turn to the origin of man, and specifically, the fossil record of ?Man?. Many people believe we have ?proof? of evolution through the fossil record, yet is this true? What is the facts surrounding fossils that are presumed to portray man?
Ramapithicus, often pictured as walking erect, has been degrade to the status of extinct ape. It's teeth and dental characteristics are similar to the gelada gibbon.(Richard Leaky/Roger Lewin Origins P.68). It has also been declared to be part of orangutan lineage.(Science News Vol 121 #5 Jan 30, 1982 P.84)
Australopithecine: not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. ?The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)
Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, ?Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40
Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, ?Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)
Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's. Evidence included skulls and a few limb bones, but were lost during W.W.II. Clear evidence at the same site showed true man along with a 30 ft. deep ash pile and a limestone mine. All of the skulls of Sianthropus were broken in the same manner as those of monkeys who are eaten for their brains.(Ian Taylor, "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the World Order", Toronto Canada, TFE pub. 1984 p. 234-241
Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap and a femur that was dug up a year later and 50 feet away. The finder, Eugene Dubois, admitted the skull cap was from a gibbon like ape.(Eugene Dubois, ?On the gibbon like appearance of Pithecanthropus Erectus", Koniklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Vol 38 Amsterdam Koninklijke Akademie 1935 P.578)
Nebraska Man was a local fossil, the entire evidence consisting of a single tooth. Nebraska Man was pictured on the front page of Life magazine in a hunter-gatherer mode. During the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, Nebraska Man was labeled a genuine missing link. The tooth turned out to be a tooth of a pig. (Henry Fairfield Osborne, Hesperopithicus Haroldcookii, the first anthropoid primate found in North America, Science Vol 60 #1427 May 3, 1922 P.463)(William K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus apparently not ape or man" Science Vol 66 #17209 Dec 16, 1927)
Piltdown Man, a deliberate hoax some blame on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, had people fooled for years and even had its picture on Life Magazine.(Joseph Wiener "The Piltdown Forgery" London Oxford U. Press)
Neanderthal Man was found in Neanderthal Valley in West Germany. Long accepted as a missing link, Neanderthal man has been proven to be human, very similar to Europeans today, yet with proven diseases such as rickets, syphilis, and arthritis.(Carl Hodge "Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told" The Arizona Republic Vol 99 #186 P. B-5)
There is no proof that man evolved from an ape like creature. In fact, many fossils of man have been found, dated to coincide with the ages of these extinct apes:
Petralona Man, found in a stalagmite 700 thousand years old.(Current Anthropology Vol 22 #3 June 1981 P.287)
Human Jawbone found in China in Yangtze River dated 2 million years old.(Java Man is only 500 thousand)(Mesa Tribune Mesa Arizona Nov 20 1988)
Also, there are some findings that contradict all known science:
Human skeleton found 1. 6 million years old, by Richard Leaky( Wash. Post Oct 19, 1984)
Evolutionists themselves disagree on just what the fossils mean and just how old they are. Consider the following:
RUINED FAMILY TREE: "either we toss out this [skull 11470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million year old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S.B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged to an orderly sequence of evolutionary change." NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, June 1973, p.819
HUMAN BRAIN: "Leakey further describes the whole shape of the brain case [skull 11470] as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the heavy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bone characteristics of Homo Erectus." SCIENCE NEWS, April 3, 1972, p. 324
"OLD" MODERN MAN: Louis Leakey, "In 1933 I published on a small fragment of jaw we call Homo Kanamens 1s, and I said categorically that this is not a near-man or ape, this is a true member of genus Homo. There were stone tools with it too. The age was probably around 2.5 to 3 million years. It was promptly put upon a shelf by my colleagues, except for two of them. The rest said it must be placed in a "suspense account". Now, 36 years later, we have proved I was right." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.156
THE OLDEST MAN: "[African footprints]... they belonged to the genus Homo (or true man), rather than to man-apes (like Australopithecus, who was once thought to be the forerunner of Man but is now regarded as a possible evolutionary dead end)... they were 3.35 to 3.75 million years old... they would, in Mary Leakey's words, be people 'not unlike ourselves'" TIME, Nov. 10, 1975, p.93
TOO HUMAN TOO OLD: Russell H Tuttle, Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Affiliate Scientist, Primate Research Center, Emory University, "In sum, the 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern Humans... If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus... in any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind..." NATURAL HISTORY, March 1990, p. 64
Human footprints, dated 3.75 million years old at Latolil (Nature Vol28 #5702 Mar 22.1979, P.317-323)
MODERN AND TALL: Richard Leakey, "... the boy from Tukana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age... he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo Erectus to contradict a long held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia," NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, Nov. 1985, p. 629
MAN EVEN BEFORE "LUCY": Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC, "...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi, existed at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile Australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern Humans at four and a half million years..." AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May 1979, p.274
HENRY M. MCHENRY, U of C, DAVIS, "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo Sapiens..." SCIENCE, Vol. 190, p.28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HOWELLS, HARVARD, "With a date of about 4.4 million years, [KP 2711] could not be distinguished from Homo Sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson or myself in 1967 (or by much searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at the time, time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element." HOMO ERECTUS, 1981, pp. 79-80
What do evolutionists and other well respected scientists say about evolution? Evolutionists themselves disagree, and those with scientific backgrounds often deny the evidence of evolution. Consider these sources:
The Dissidents No less an authority than the world-renowned paleontologist (with Dr. Colin Patterson) for the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. N. Etheridge, has remarked: "Nine tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, their is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (quoted by Lindsay Gordon, Evolution - The Incredible Hoax, 1977)
Sir Ernest Chain, 1945 Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin, in D.T. Rosevear's Scientists critical of Evolution, July 1980, p.4: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."
Dr. Werner von Braun, one of the leading scientists in NASA's Apollo project (many of you interested in space exploration know the name), wrote the following in a letter to the California State Board of Education, September 14, 1972: "To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?... We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life, and man in the science classroom, It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance."
Dr. Pierre P. Grasse, editor of the twenty-eight volumes of "Traite de Zoologie" and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences is considered to be the most distinguished of French zoologists. His conclusions? "The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism." (The Evolution of Living Organisms)
P. Lemoine, a president of the Geologic Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, has concluded: "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate.... It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible." (Introduction: De L'Evolution? in 5 Encyclopedie Francaise)
Dr. Hubert P. Yockey, A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis bt Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1977, Vol. 67, p.398: "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."
Dr. Derek V. Ager, Geologist, Imperial College, London, Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, 1976, pp.132 - 133: "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked."
Dr. Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, evolutionist, concludes his 1986 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, thus: "Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.... The truth is that despite the prestige of evolutionary theory and the tremendous intellectual effort directed towards reducing living systems to the confines of Darwinian thought, nature refuses to be imprisoned. The "mystery of mysteries" - the origin of new beings on earth - is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle".
Finally, the aforementioned Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, remarked in a 1981 lecture at the American Museum of Natural History: "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing... that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not be taught in high school."
Have there been any strange findings that disagree with evolutionary thought about how old mankind is?
Gold Chains found in coal.(Morrisonville Times, Morrisonville M Jun 11 1891)
Metal bell shaped vessel found in solid rock.(Scientific American Vol7 June 1851 P 298-299)
Another important topic is the age of the earth. Is the earth billions of years old? The earth's magnetic field was measured accurately since 1835. Since 1835 the earth's magnetic field has decreased by 6%. Physicist Dr. Thomas Bames concluded that the half life for the magnetic field was 830 to 1400 years. That means that 830 to 1400 years ago, the magnetic field was twice as strong as it is today. Another 831 to 1400 years before that, it was 4 times as strong.
According to Dr. Bames," If we went back about 10,000 years, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as the field in a magnetic star. A magnetic star is like our sun: it has a nuclear power source. Surely our Earth never had a nuclear power source like the sun. Surely our earth never had a magnetic field stronger than a star. That would limit the age of the earth to 10,000 years. Science could definitely say, from the greatest physical evidence,(the kind of evidence and physics that we design radar sets with, and communication sets with), that the earth's magnetic field cannot be more than about 6 to 15 thousand years old." Thomas Bames, The Earth a young Planet? Films for Christ Assoc.)
Another topic would be population growth. There have been estimates of population growth as high as 2% per year. Assuming that population grows at only .5% per year, it would take only 4000 years to achieve today's population beginning from a single couple. Many creationists feel that Noah's flood was about 4000 years ago, so this fits creation theory quite nicely. If the Earth is as old as evolutionists claim, and the population grew at .5%, in a million years there would be lOE2100 people! Even if it took a million years to get at our present population, there would have been about 3,000,000,000,000 people before us! Where is the fossil evidence? Where is the cultural evidence?
Another topic is space dust, or debris left over from creation or impacts of meteors or comets. If the Earth or the Moon were as old as evolutionists say, there should be plentiful amounts of dust on the Moon that could have been, measured when we landed there. NASA even put large saucer shaped pads on the LEM so that it would not sink into the soil.
Some say that creation is a religious belief. Only Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe in special creation. Do any religions believe in evolution? How about Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confusionism, Buddism, American Indian Native Religions, Secular Humanism, and Satanism.
To assume that a belief in a creator God would disqualify someone from being a real scientist, consider this list:
JOSEPH LISTER- ANTISEPTIC SURGERY
LOUIS PASTEUR- BACTERIOLOGY
ISAAC NEWTON- CALCULUS
JOHANNA KEEPER- CELESTIAL MECHANICS
ROBERT BOYLE- CHEMISTRY
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL-ELECTRODYNAMICS
MICHAEL FARADAY-ELECTROMAGNETICS
AMBROSE FLEMING-ELECTRONICS
LORD KELVIN-ENERGETICS
WILLIAM HERSCHEL-GALACTIC ASTRONOMY
GREGOR MENDEL-GENETICS
DAVINCI-HYDRAULICS
BLAISE PASCAL-HYDROSTATICS
JAMES JOULE-REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS
CHARLES BABBAGE-ACTUARIAL TABLES
JOSEPH HENRY-ELECTRIC MOTOR
SAMUEL F. B. MORSE-TELEGRAPH
I GUESS THE BIBLE'S TRUE AFTER ALL!
1 Posted on 09/03/1999 10:51:00 PDT by RaceBannon (jimban@snet.net)
[ Reply | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: RaceBannon
With whom did Cain and Abel mate?
SD
2 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:05:09 PDT by SoothingDave
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: RaceBannon
shameless self-aggrandizing bump/
3 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:06:00 PDT by RaceBannon
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: RaceBannon
I won't respond to you post point by point, since that would take forever. All I will say is that anyone who thinks the Bible, as great a book as it is, is a completely accurate history is not playing wih a full deck. The same goes for anyone who uses the Bible to argue against evolution. There is enough evidence to support the theory of evolution, just as there is enough evidence to show that the Bible should not be used as a history or science book. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone with just average intelligence does not understand and believe in evolution.
4 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:06:23 PDT by biggun
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: SoothingDave
The bible does not say that Abel mated. Cain would have mated with his sister or his niece. The Bible is silent on how old cain was when he moved away from Mom and Dad, so we don't know how old his brothers and sisters would have been. Since the sin narrative did not involve any of Cain's sisters or nieces or nephews, it just tells of Cain and Abel. So, when we read that Cain left to the land of Nod with his wife, it had to be his biological sister or the daughter of one of his sisters. The Bible did not forbid incest until the Book of Leviticus. Since these were the first humans, there would be no genetic decay, no genetic load of mutations that are harmful, so the incestuous relationship would not produce deformed children. Since we have been breeding for at least 6000 years now, the genetic load would be hazardous to us now!
5 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:11:33 PDT by RaceBannon
[ Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: biggun
There is enough evidence to support the theory of evolution, just as there is enough evidence to show that the Bible should not be used as a history or science book.
Name any point of history that has proven the Bible wrong.
Name any fact, not theory, but FACT of science that has proven the Bible wrong.
I'll wait.
6 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:13:32 PDT by RaceBannon
[ Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: RaceBannon
Here is a nice introduction to evolution controversies: Link
Here is a point by point refutation of many creationist claims: Link
Here is a list of observed speciations to peruse at your leasure. Link
Here are some fossil records of speciation: Link
Here is a a link where the evolution of horses and other vertebrates are discussed in detail, including transitional fossils. There is also a general analysis of the evidence for evolution: Link
Here is a site explaining 5 common misconceptions of evolution: link
Here is a cool site where you can breed fruit flies on the web
Behe
Here are a bunch of articles on Behe's work: Link and Link2
I found this article written by a chemist who believes that anti-evolution creationists are actually undermining belief in G-d. There are some explanations of why Behe is wrong about irreducible complexity:
The link is here: Link
7 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:17:39 PDT by The Enlightener
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: biggun
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone with just average intelligence does not understand and believe in evolution.
I cannot understand how anyone with intelligence does not understand that we are created beings, and not involved.
The Bible calls that foolish. Psalm 14 says:1: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Is this you? I hope not.
Isaiah 40: 21: Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. 24: Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. 25: To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26: Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.
8 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:18:15 PDT by RaceBannon
[ Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: RaceBannon
Evolution is a theory supported by facts.
Creationism is a belief supported by dogma.
9 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:21:47 PDT by uprise
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: RaceBannon
The bible does not say that Abel mated. Cain would have mated with his sister or his niece. The Bible is silent on how old cain was when he moved away from Mom and Dad, so we don't know how old his brothers and sisters would have been. Since the sin narrative did not involve any of Cain's sisters or nieces or nephews, it just tells of Cain and Abel. So, when we read that Cain left to the land of Nod with his wife, it had to be his biological sister or the daughter of one of his sisters. The Bible did not forbid incest until the Book of Leviticus. Since these were the first humans, there would be no genetic decay, no genetic load of mutations that are harmful, so the incestuous relationship would not produce deformed children. Since we have been breeding for at least 6000 years now, the genetic load would be hazardous to us now!
Yeah, but after Cain married, he and his wife went to a city in the land of Nod!? What you are missing is that the Hebrew word for man is Adam. So when the Bible says G-d created man, it means mankind. Everyone at once. If you read Genesis this way, all the contradictions and the incest angle dissapears.
You can't be serious in thinking that sin did not exist until Leviticus was written. Why did G-d destroy the earth in a flood then(Noah's story)--to punish people who did not know they were sinning because he hadn't written down what was wrong yet? Doesn't sound like the loving G-d that I'm used to.
As for the reast of what you said, your idea of genetics is wrong. Even if you had two heterogenous individuals, their children would share 50% of the parents DNA, so their childrens children would then all have the same DNA and lethal mutations would occur in the second generation. You need a minimum number of heterogenous individuals to have a viable population. The number is . . . more than 25(at least 10 of which are female)! And even then, the females would have to have at least one child from every male to make it work right. Otherwise, by the third generation, all the kids start having major birth defects and the population dies out.
10 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:32:39 PDT by The Enlightener
[ Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: RaceBannon
Interesting article - with many good arguments against evolution, and even some favoring creation.
I struggle with these issues almost every day in my mind - they don't go away. As an engineer, I am trained to think logically and follow the scientific method. As a Christian, I have faith that God created the universe, although I don't "believe" it happened within the last 10,000 years (due to the overwhelming scientific evidence on hand).
It's interesting that the article doesn't address the "intelligent design" theory that some creationists espouse. That appears to allow creation to occur followed by some of the evolutionary processes. If God was an imperfect engineer, he would make prototypes and test them - thereby causing the different links in the fossil record.
It's entirely possible that we are all figments of God's imagination, exercising the free will and thought bestowed upon us.
11 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:33:57 PDT by randyrep
[ Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: The Enlightener
Here is a list of observed speciations to peruse at your leasure.
Using the given definition of speciation that your link gives, an argument could easily be made that blacks, whites, and asiatics are all different species.
12 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:35:12 PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Reply | To 7 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: RaceBannon
It's no wonder that conservatives get mislabelled as the "rabid right". If we could purge our ranks of the religious nuts then we might get more respect from the average American. As it is, we are stereotyped as a bunch of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell followers who won't budge on abortion, school prayer, evolution etc. Let's try to win for a change. We can start by chucking the Bibles and the evangelical rhetoric.
13 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:41:09 PDT by tm22721 (tm22721@yahoo.com)
[ Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: The Enlightener
"In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, a fanatical atheist and a leading spokesman for Darwinian evolution, was asked if he could produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information. Although this has been known for some time to be a significant issue, during a recorded interview, Dawkins was unable to offer any such example of a documented increase in information resulting from a mutation.
After some months, Professor Dawkins has offered an essay responding to this question in context with the interview, and it will be examined here. It is pointed out that speculation and selective use of data is no substitute for evidence. Since some statements are based on Thomas Bayes? notion of information, this is evaluated in Part 2 and shown to be unconvincing. Some ideas are based on Claude Shannon?s work, and Part 3 shows this to be irrelevant to the controversy. The true issue, that of what coded information, such as found in DNA, human speech and the bee dance, is and how it could have arisen by chance, is simply ignored. Part 4 discusses the Werner Gitt theory of information.
After several years, we continue to request from the Darwinist theoreticians: propose a workable model and show convincing evidence for how coded information can arise by chance!"
From an article by Royal Truman
Cordially,
14 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:42:53 PDT by Diamond
[ Reply | To 7 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Frumious Bandersnatch
Here is a list of observed speciations to peruse at your leasure.
Using the given definition of speciation that your link gives, an argument could easily be made that blacks, whites, and asiatics are all different species.
Here's an example for you. Pacific and Atlantic salmon look almost identical. The main difference is that when you cut open a pacific salmon, it is red inside, and an atlantic salmon is pink. Yet, these two very similar fish can not interbreed. Why? Because they both evolved from a common ancestor and have changed just enough that although they still look similar, they can not interbreed. Humans are all one species because they can all interbreed, in the same way that dogs and wolves are all one species. But these two salmon are considered different species.
So the question is what is a species? I would define it as a group of creatures that can all interbreed with each other. Any similar creature that can not interbreed with the others must be a different species.
15 Posted on 09/03/1999 11:51:37 PDT by The Enlightener
[ Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: tm22721
It's no wonder that conservatives get mislabelled as the "rabid right". If we could purge our ranks of the religious nuts then we might get more respect from the average American. As it is, we are stereotyped as a bunch of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell followers who won't budge on abortion, school prayer, evolution etc. Let's try to win for a change. We can start by chucking the Bibles and the evangelical rhetoric.
I'd like to see the GOP establishment try to soft-pedal on abortion, and see how long us social conservatives keep voting for them.
So what? If you win, what will you have won? A party that must stick its finger into the wind can't lead.
"What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" Mark 8:36
16 Posted on 09/03/1999 12:02:21 PDT by John Farson
[ Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: All
Here's a little Robert Ingersoll Green (1896) to spice things up:
Is there a supernatural power -- an arbitrary mind -- an enthroned God -- a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world -- to which all causes bow?
I do not deny. I do not know -- but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme -- that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken -- that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer -- no power that worship can persuade or change -- no power that cares for man.
I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all -- that there is no interference -- no chance -- that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects.
Man must protect himself. He cannot depend upon the supernatural -- upon an imaginary father in the skies. He must protect himself by finding the facts in Nature, by developing his brain, to the end that he may overcome the obstructions and take advantage of the forces of Nature.
Is there a God?
I do not know.
Is man immortal?
I do not know.
One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.
We wait and hope.
17 Posted on 09/03/1999 12:03:04 PDT by Eddeche
[ Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: The Enlightener
Concerning the transitional forms, I found this little gem: Archaeopterx hoax which may be of some interest.
Now don't get me wrong, I am neither for nor against evolution. There is evidence for and against it. It is just that the fanatical religious zealotry typically displayed by defenders of the theory bothers me.
It is dismaying, to say the least, to see ad-hominem attacks on those bringing up inconvenient questions as well as the absolute refusal of the high priests of evolution to even treat such questions with any respect at all.
18 Posted on 09/03/1999 12:15:13 PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Reply | To 7 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: tm22721
"...If we could purge our ranks of the religious nuts..."
We can start by chucking the Bibles and the evangelical rhetoric."
Well, tm22721 you may as well chuck the Constitution, too, because the Bible, more than any other writing, is responsible for our Constitution.
"We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."- James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."- Patrick Henry
"Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."- John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
Cordially,
19 Posted on 09/03/1999 12:19:02 PDT by Diamond
[ Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Diamond
"In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, a fanatical atheist and a leading spokesman for Darwinian evolution, was asked if he could produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information. Although this has been known for some time to be a significant issue, during a recorded interview, Dawkins was unable to offer any such example of a documented increase in information resulting from a mutation.
After some months, Professor Dawkins has offered an essay responding to this question in context with the interview, and it will be examined here. It is pointed out that speculation and selective use of data is no substitute for evidence. Since some statements are based on Thomas Bayes? notion of information, this is evaluated in Part 2 and shown to be unconvincing. Some ideas are based on Claude Shannon?s work, and Part 3 shows this to be irrelevant to the controversy. The true issue, that of what coded information, such as found in DNA, human speech and the bee dance, is and how it could have arisen by chance, is simply ignored. Part 4 discusses the Werner Gitt theory of information.
After several years, we continue to request from the Darwinist theoreticians: propose a workable model and show convincing evidence for how coded information can arise by chance!"
Imagine a bacterium. It reproduces by dividing and growing. It does this billions of times a day. Withing these billions of bacterium, a few will have mutations. Of these few mutations, most will be bad. But given enough days, and enough mutations, one of them is bound to turn out to be good. So imagine a bacterium sitting on a petri dish with an antibiotic spray randomly one a day, that does not cover the whole dish. Eventually, these bacteria will become immune to the antibiotic, because a mutation will make it happen--this has be proven time and time again in the lab. So we definitely agree that microevolution occurs. Now, imagine that we take one of those bacteria and put it into a second petri dish. So we have two petri dishes filled with a bacteria immune to an antibiotic. Now, we expose both dishes to random splattering from a second antibiotic and wait for them to evolve immunity. What are the odds that both populations evolve the same defense? Since random mutations are the source, the odds are quite high that they have each evolved their own mechanism to deal with the antibiotic.
Parasites also evolve with the bacteria. They are bacteria that have no replicating mechanisms of their own, but steal the replicators of other bacteria to reproduce. In this case, such a parasite is merely a strand of RNA that hijacks a bacteria and makes it pump our more RNA strands to infect other bacteria. This has also been shown in the lab that for any simple life form(up to single cell size), the first thing that evolves is a parasitic version of the life form that steals reproduction from its brothers.
Now, imagine that the bacteria will evolve a mechanism to fight off the parasites, and the parasites will evolve a way to beat the mechanism. We are adding complexity to the system, adding information. You can see these results in computer simulations of artificial life today(see Link). So your problem is solved.
The parasites and the full bacteria will fight back and forth, adding complexity to the organism until the organism or the parasite is wiped out(hopefully the parasite, or the population dies!), and new parasites evolve all the time. This is just one mechanism for complexity to evolve, but there are many other theories. I suggest you check out the link I posted above.