Denial of evolution

It's in the wrong subforum. The denial of evolution is a social movement. Not a scientific one. Hence the subforum science and society would be better suited for this kind of debate.

And what you mostly see is that this debate is approached wrongly. There is no point engaging in a 'scientific' discussion since there is none to start with. It would be more fruitful to actually grab the bull by the horns of truth and discuss the topic from a proper perspective.

Trying to give scientific answers, which are mostly not even scientific but encyclopedic, merely gives merit to the cause of evolution denialism.

That said, I am all for the original idea of refuting the claims of creationists. I do not agree with an approach that legitimizes the notion that we are dealing with a scientific discussion.

It's a social movement people. Not science. All I see is a reluctance to accept this simple truth and discuss it openly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

isn't creationism and evolution two different things?

it should be creationism vs. abiogenesis.

evolution has squat to do with creationism/ ID. even if evolution proves to be true that does not rule out creationism.
if abiogenesis proves to be true then creationism just got shot in the head.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You left out one detail of importance. There is no single creationist theory. It is whatever people want it to be. A myriad of possibilities, all true, all false.

Hence not a single creationist will actually explain their ideas in details. Mostly because this will instantly lead to a refutation of said theory based on current knowledge, and also because most have no clue to start with.

It's not as if creationism arose by careful thinking. It just happens to be an idea proscribed by a religious institute and this signifies mostly its merit.

And therefore creationism can actually be a counter concept for evolution, since some creationists actually do believe god created all life on earth.

There is truly a miracle here right before our eyes to behold. Creationists do not fight each other publicly although they are all in competition for the truth. It's just that there is a greater enemy out there: an explanation for the world without a deity or deities.

hence I would like to counter your postulation that it is biogenesis vs creationism and not evolution vs creationism. Since in many cases it is indeed creationism vs evolution.

Still, this is a discussion on society here and the clash with scientific concepts, not a scientific discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evolution is NOT science! Here's why..

Evolution is a very nice idea, which is nevertheless completely un-provable and unsupported by science. Therefore, it is simply another religion or form of belief, just like any religious creation story. It is no different from the native creation belief that man was made out of clay and put in the oven until he came out the right colour. Those who believe in it do so because they have faith in it, not because it has been proven by science.

The main problem we have with evolution today is that the information presented to us in our textbooks seems very credible and very realistic, because we haven’t been told the whole truth. We haven’t been told all the details surrounding those scientific discoveries which support evolution. What I am going to try to do is prove that evolution is scientifically unfeasible using facts which have not been taught to us in our textbooks. I will be using biology, chemistry, physics and math to do this.

Before I begin, I would like to simply set some facts straight:

Evolution is the belief that about 4.6 billion years ago, the planet earth came into existence by itself through chemical processes. Then after several thousand years, the chemicals evolved and became what we now know as the primordial soup. Then over even more long periods of times the chemicals in the primordial soup bonded to make molecules, and then after more long periods of time the molecules bonded to make the first living cell.

We are going to be dealing with: Atoms  make molecules
Molecules  make amino acids
Amino acids  make proteins

Evolution originally started with the idea of spontaneous generation, the belief that life could magically spring out where there was no life. Then the idea of evolution was developed. However, Louis Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation was inexistent. This is interesting, because it means that evolution was born from an erroneous idea. In other words, it started out with the left foot.

Once the idea of spontaneous generation was no longer acceptable, the Evolutionary Theory had to change; it now became chemical evolution. They have nevertheless remained basically the same: both ideas are the belief that life can be created from non-life. The main difference lies in the fact that with chemical evolution, we are working at the chemical level, meaning, with very, very small things. So what I must do, is prove that, contrary to what evolution says, it is impossible for chemicals to bond together to create a living cell.

Let’s start with the Miller experiment, one of the ways in which our textbooks attempt to prove that evolution is plausible. In the 1950’s, Miller wanted to prove that it was possible for amino acids, the building blocks of life, to have generated spontaneously in what is denominated the “primordial soup,” so he built a chamber and tried to recreate the atmosphere of the earth millions of years ago. He used gasses like methane and ammonia, and did not use oxygen. Then electrical sparks were used to drive reactions, and indeed, the experiment did result in amino acids. In our textbooks, the evidence has been presented in such a way that it makes us believe that Miller did prove that life can be created from nothing. Now let’s examine the experiment critically:

To begin with, how did Miller know what gasses composed the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago? Miller supposed that the atmosphere did not contain any oxygen, as does the rest of the evolutionary community today. Why is that? It is because they have no alternative, as it has been scientifically proven that in the presence of oxygen, amino acids cannot bond together. So evolutionists aren’t deciding that there was no oxygen presence in the earth’s atmosphere because of scientific proof, they are making this decision because otherwise the theory of evolution would not be possible.

Before we criticize evolutionists for teaching this, however, we must find out if there is any scientific proof that indicates that the oxygen was not present in the earth’s atmosphere in the beginning. For this we turn to an article of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Foundation called “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life.” This is a direct quote:

“Geologists know from their analysis of the oldest known rocks that the oxygen level of the early atmosphere had to be much higher than previously calculated.”

Later on the article states,

“Analysis of these rocks, estimated to be more than 3.5 billion years old, found oxidized amounts that called for atmospheric oxygen to be at least 110 times greater and perhaps up to one billion times greater than otherwise accepted.”

If this is not convincing enough, the geological periodical Geology published an article entitled “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An evaluation of the Geological Evidence,” says,

“There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere…Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen atmosphere.”

So scientific evidence points to the fact that there has always been oxygen on earth. However, oxygen does not allow amino acids to bond together, as it corrodes the bonds, and thus the first cell could have never been in an oxygenated atmosphere. This is why evolutionists insist that the earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-free millions of years ago. This is the first flaw in Miller’s experiment.

However, even if we were to ignore the scientific evidence, and believe that the world did indeed start without any oxygen, both the Miller experiment and evolution itself run into another problem that our textbooks have failed to consider; without oxygen, there is no ozone. And if there is no ozone, it really does not matter whether life started at all or not, because any life would have been instantly fried to a crisp by the sun’s rays, as there would be no protection from them.

So if there was oxygen in that first atmosphere, life can’t start, and if there was no oxygen, life can’t start either. Evolution is in trouble here. Of course, some say life didn’t start on land; they believe life started in the water, and we crawled out of the ocean. Let’s see if, according to chemistry, this is possible; water, H2O, contains an oxygen atom in it. And if you remember what we just learned, amino acid bonds cannot form in the presence of oxygen. As soon as the bond starts to form, the oxygen molecule inserts itself between the two amino acids, and pulls them apart. This is a process termed by our chemistry textbooks as hydrolysis. So if any amino acids had formed, they would have been destroyed within weeks. This means that life could not have started on land with oxygen, not on land without oxygen, and not in the water. So far, both the Miller experiment and the theory of Evolution are scientifically not sound.

So far, we have proven that there are several problems with the atmosphere Miller used while creating amino acids. Now let’s explore a second problem; intelligent design. You see, if we put the evolution model of creation in a formula, matter + energy + time = life. There is no intelligent design at all involved in the process. Logically therefore, if Miller was recreating how amino acids came to be, he would not have used intelligent design in his model. However, did he? Well, let’s see, he decided exactly which gasses would go in the experiment, and exactly what quantities…a decision which has no scientific backing, as we have seen. Then he generated the electrical sparks that drove the reactions. He didn’t leave this to chance. Already here we are seeing a degree of intelligent design. However, even if these details were to be dismissed, there is a third detail which we are interestingly not told when we learn about the Miller experiment: He equipped his experimental chamber with a trap door, through which he extracted his amino acids once they had been created. Why is that? Because Miller knew that amino acids cannot survive in the environment of the primordial soup. So if despite all the evidence which has been given contradicting the experiment and the primordial soup, we were to accept the experiment, it would still prove nothing, as amino acids cannot survive in the atmosphere of the primordial soup. At the same time, Miller broke the rules, as he used intelligent design by interfering with the “creation process.” Thus Miller’s experiment has been ruled inadmissible, and along the way we have also proven that it would in fact have been impossible for life to begin in any of the ways which we have been told it did, namely in an atmosphere with oxygen, in an atmosphere without oxygen, and in the water. We have also proven that our textbooks have lied by omission to us. And if they have lied in this, what can we believe them in? I am not implying that everything they say is a lie, but I am implying that everything they say at least in the realm of evolution, should be very carefully tested against the scientific facts and against the whole truth. In fact, if our textbooks were being used as witnesses in a court, anything they said would no longer be admitted even if it was true, because they have been found to be lying by omission at least once.

It all gets even better, though. What would you say if you knew that Miller’s own evidence, the amino acids he created, are actually the biggest detriment to the success of his experiment? Yet that is exactly what happened.

There are over 20 000 amino acids out there, but only 20 are used in life. And there are two types of amino acids. Each type has a similar, yet different shape. They are actually mirror images of each others. It’s sort of like a left hand and right hand. We will call the two types of amino acids left- and right-handed amino acids. They have the same components, just like both your hands have four fingers and thumb, but they are mirror images of each other. What is interesting is that every single amino acid in every single protein in all of life is “left-handed.” There can be no “right-handed” amino acids in life. Once you die, the amino acids in your body will begin reverting into a mixture of roughly 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed amino acids. In fact, all experiments conducted by scientists using amino acids always end up in a mixture of left and right handed amino acids even if they started off with all left handed amino acids, they will always go back to a mixture. When we look at the Miller experiment, we find that Miller did indeed achieve amino acids, but these amino acids were actually a mixture of roughly 50% left handed and 50% right handed amino acids. This tells us two things; #1, Miller did not, contrary to what our textbooks tell us, create life. He actually created death. So if the experiment had actually not had all the problems we have previously outlined, and could be scientifically accepted, it would have proven that in this mythical primordial soup (mythical because there is no proof for it) using electrical stimulation and a degree of intelligent design, death can be created. This gets evolutionists exactly nowhere. Instead, it helps to prove that evolution is not supported by science, and must be accepted by faith alone. #2, If the tendency is always for amino acids to move away from life, not towards life, then how can we justify a mysterious switch of amino acids from 50-50 % to 100% left handed amino acids, which goes against the way in which amino acids behave?

Now this leaves us with a very interesting question: Why is it that our evolutionist textbooks insist on deceiving us? It is because they have not been able to find any substantial proof for evolution, and therefore need to turn this experiments which actually disproves their theory into something that appears to support it, lie by omission, and deceive us. If they had real evidence, they would have no need for doing this.

Contrary to what we are taught today, the Miller experiment is not heralded accepted as a triumph by the scientific community. As a side note, it is important to realize that the evolutionary community and the scientific community are not synonymous. This is what one notable scientist has to say about the Miller experiment:



“Since Miller’s beguiling picture of a pond full of dissolved amino acids under a reducing atmosphere has been discredited, a new beguiling picture has life originating in a hot, deep, dark little hole on the ocean floor”

--Princeton University Professor Freeman Dyson in his Origins of Life,

Notice how the only real effect of Miller’s experiment was to prove that life can’t start in a reducing (that means lacking oxygen) atmosphere. However, remember that life can’t start in the water either due to hydrolysis.

Organic Chemist William Bonner from Stanford University, one of the world’s leading experts in “left-handed” amino acids, says of the beginning of life that “Terrestrial explanations are impotent and non-viable.” This means that he believes that there is no way that life could have originated on this earth. Incidentally, Bonner is not a creationist. Neither was Karl Popper when he stated that evolution was not scientific, but rather it belonged to the field of metaphysics. These are just two of many honest scientists who know that science teaches that evolution is impossible.

So now that Miller’s experiment, his scientific integrity, as well as the integrity of the information given to us through our textbooks, and several other concepts have been duly addressed, we can move on to explore a different flaw in the evolutionary theory.

Let’s take one single cell. This tiny, invisible cell is much more complex than any computer ever built in human history. If I begin to claim that my laptop finds itself today recording these words due to random processes over long periods of time….chances are, I would find myself in a mental institution rather quickly. So if it’s not logical to believe that a computer could form itself by random chance, then why would it be logical to believe that a cell, many times more complex than a computer, could form itself randomly?

Now lets look at mathematics: probability. There are two types of amino acids, so we will use a coin to represent them. Heads is left-handed amino acids, tails is right-handed amino acids. Remember that for there to be life, there can only be left-handed amino acids. The presence of even one right-handed amino acid will prevent life.

According to evolution, left-handed amino acids bonded in order to create life by pure accident, or random chance. So we are going to illustrate the chances of getting enough left-handed amino acids in a row to form a protein. If we do a coin toss, this would be easily achieved. So let’s see what happens:

According to probability, to get one heads (left-handed amino acid) we must flip the coin twice, and one of those will be heads. To get two heads in a row, we must flip the coin 4 times. To get three heads, we must flip 8 times. In other words, if you flip a coin 8 times, somewhere in there you will have three heads in a row, and if the process is repeated enough times, three heads in a row will become your average. The observable pattern here is 2 to the first power, 2 to the second power, etc. Now an average-sized protein has over 200 left-handed amino acids. This means that we would need to randomly get over 200 heads in a row. Just to get 8 heads in a row, we would need to flip a coin 256 times. To get 100 left-handed amino acids in a row, or 100 heads in a row, that’s 2 the 100th power. You would need to flip the coin 31 million times a second for more than 1 quadrillion years, in order to get this result. This means that there would need to be more than 31 million chemical reactions a second for more than a quadrillion years just to get 100 left-handed amino acids to bond together. We’ve only got half a protein here, nowhere near even one living cell. But the universe is only 20 billion years old at the most. So in the history of the universe, there isn’t enough time for even one protein to form. This poses a significant problem for evolution

But even if for some strange reason the laws of mathematics were defied, and one protein was somehow created, this would not accomplish anything; proteins don’t have instructions to replicate themselves, or create DNA, much less to create a living cell. Besides this, if there is oxygen in the atmosphere, the amino acids cannot bond, if there is no oxygen there is no ozone and the protein will fry, and if the protein is in water, it will be pulled apart due to hydrolysis.

Furthermore, the law of probability states that if the chances of something happening are beyond 10 to the 50th power, it will never happen. However, mathematicians have calculated that the probability of a single protein forming is 10 to the power of 191. And the probability of a single cell? 10 to the 40 000th power. This means neither of these would ever happen. According to mathematics, evolution is impossible.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, states in his book “Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature,”

“If a particular amino acid sequence were selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?…The majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.”

By the way, Francis Crick is an evolutionist. How he can manage to reconcile his knowledge with his beliefs, I’ll never know.

Robert Gange, a research scientist with a PhD, says that “The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero.”

Now let’s look at this interesting piece of information:

An amino acid has about 20 atoms. To get the right amino acid, you need to have all the right atoms. Then they have to be in the right order, and then, it has to accidentally happen to be a left-handed amino acid. H.J.C. Berendsen says in an article from the Scientific Journal Science,

“Scientists have been attempting to be able to determine a protein’s native conformation (or folding) by examining the amino acid sequence. Despite years of study, the ability to do this using even the fastest computers is beyond our reach.”

Later on he states,

“Using a super fast computer (10 to the 15 computations per second) it would take 10 to the power of 80 seconds, which exceeds the age of the universe by a factor of 60 orders of magnitude!”

I’d just like to point out that the computer we are talking about here would be doing a quadrillion computations a second. Our average computer does about a billion computations a second. And this super fast computer would take a trillion years to be able to make one protein.

In another experiment, researchers from Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico, and from the University of California, in San Diego, created a simulation in which they gave a computer all the right atoms in the correct order. The only thing required of this computer was to simulate to fold the protein the correct way. It was a simple protein of 18000 atoms. It took the computer 6 months on 82 parallel processors just to accomplish this task. This is equal to 34 years of CPU time. The cell completes this same job 100 trillion times faster, in about 10 microseconds. And you think this cell formed accidentally?

Moving on, let’s quickly look at the primordial soup in terms of Chemistry, Biology and Physics:

Chemistry- Hydrolysis. Water decomposes molecules. Therefore, it’s necessary for life, but it’s detrimental to the creation of life.

Biology- All amino acids are left handed. Similarly, there are two types of sugars, left handed and right handed sugars. But in DNA only right-handed sugars are utilized. Evolution just ran into another probability problem here.

Physics- Physics is the study of motion and movement. In physics there is what is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it has been proven that anything that contradicts this law cannot happen. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Energy goes from a state of usable energy to a state of less usable energy for doing work in an isolated system.

In Plain English, this just means that everything is using up energy in order to work, which results in everything going from a state of complexity to a state of less complexity. Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because according to evolution everything is gaining complexity, and evolving. There are two arguments which evolutionists make against this claim, both of which I will address. The first one is that the law applies to an isolated system only, while we live in an open system. Open system means that energy can be added to or taken away from the system, while Isolated system means that no matter or energy can get in or out. The only thing scientifically known to be an isolated system is the universe, as scientifically no energy or matter can get in or out. Everything else is an open system, such as the earth, or our bodies.

What most people don’t know is that although the Second Law of Thermodynamics mentions only isolated systems, it is known throughout the scientific community that this very rule applies to open systems as well. One clear example of this is yourself; as you get older, you will realize that you have less and less energy, and the complexity of your body will decrease, until you die, and decompose, and turn into even less complex dust. The same applies to everything else. Harvard University scientist Dr. John Ross, an evolutionist, says,

“There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”

The other argument that evolutionists use is that of an animal embryo or a seed; they say that an animal embryo is an example of an open system which, in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics, grows and therefore becomes more complex. The same applies to a seed; it grows and becomes more complex. Although this argument sounds convincing, upon critical examination it is not difficult to determine that it is inadmissible, because neither an embryo nor a seed is becoming more complex, as the information was in the embryo or seed since the beginning. It is only developing, and the information is being expressed in a different manner. But it has not gained complexity. On the contrary, the seed or embryo will eventually die, decompose, and then it will have lost complexity. On the other hand, were I to ask an evolutionist how exactly did the DNA get there in the first place, he would find himself unable to answer scientifically.

Let’s look at what we have learned so far:

1. If there was oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago, life couldn’t have started
2. If there wasn’t oxygen, life couldn’t have started either
3. Due to hydrolysis, life couldn’t have started in the water either.
4. Mathematics and probability say that it was impossible for life to have started in the way evolution teaches it did
5. The second law of thermodynamics states that organisms don’t become more complex. They in fact lose complexity, and anything that contradicts this law cannot be. This destroys evolution.
6. Our textbooks have deceived us, and evolutionists aren’t telling the whole truth, because otherwise they have no scientific backing for their theory

Now that a degree of scientific evidence has been established, let’s use some common, everyday logic to think out the matter of evolution. Let’s begin by looking at that formula of the evolutionary model:

matter + energy + time = complex codes (or life, in the case of evolution)

All of science is based upon observations. The only way in which we can prove that something is true or could be true, is through observations. However, the occurrence of matter plus time and energy ending up in complex codes has never been observed before. If I take my computer apart, no matter how much sun(energy) shines on it and no matter how many billions of years(time) pass by, it will never assemble itself and become a complex code. If we have never observed this equation at work, how can we call evolution science? It is alright for it to be metaphysics, a religion, a belief system, maybe even history. But science?

Let’s look at a quote by Dr. Werner Gitt, who was the director of the Germany Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, and one of the top Information Scientists in the World:

“Since the findings of James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question.”

Imagine we take a 747 Boeing airplane, disassemble it into its original 1.4 million pieces, scatter them on the ground, and fly it. Impossible. Now let’s disassemble it, let the sun shine on it for billions of years, and fly it. It’s still impossible, because matter + energy + time cannot equal complex codes. According to scientist Chandra Wickramsinghe in the article “Threats on Life of Controversial Astronomer,”

“The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747.”

Here is what a few more scientists have to say about evolution

Evolutionist Dr. Klaus Dose, director of the Institute for Biochemistry at Johannes Guttenberg university in West Germany, says in “The Origin of Life: More questions than answers” in the Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”

Paul Davies, leading evolutionist, claims in The 5th Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life that

“Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit they are baffled. They worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding”

This is significant. One of the leading evolutionists is admitting that evolutionists themselves know that they actually have no proof for anything, but they won’t admit it because of money? Very troubling. It’s not about education, science, the Truth. It’s about money.

I leave you with this thought:

“If I tell you only part of the evidence, and you believe it, you have not been taught, you have been indoctrinated. If I tell you all the evidence and you make a decision, then you have been taught.”
--Michael Riddle

This means that because of the deception by omission that high school students are being subjected to, such as in Miller’s experiment, we are being indoctrinated, as we are not being given all the evidence. My point in making this argument is not that evolution is erroneous and shouldn’t be believed, although I can’t say that it’s very difficult to arrive to that conclusion, but that evolution is not supported by science. If you want to believe it, go ahead. I won’t be the one to stop you. Simply realize that you are accepting it by faith, and not because it is scientifically sound.

 

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

It has been proven. It is wholly supported by science. Your statements to the contrary merely reveal the depth and appalling blindness of your ignorance. Reference to any of the several links offered by others in this thread would demonstrate this to anyone with an open mind.

More mind numbing ignorance. You are offering a half hearted, half baked attempt at describing abiogenesis, not evolution. Virtually every phrase in this quote is flawed. As a single example, the planet came into existence largely through physical processes, not chemical ones. Subsequent planetary development combined physical and chemical changes.

You then indulge yourself in an attack on abiogenesis that reveals a greatly flawed understanding of the significance of the Miller-Urey experiment. (It is relevant because it revealed a new way of approaching the problem of abiogenesis, not because of the conditions or results of the experiment.) But this attack has no relevance to evolution since evolution deals with the concept of descent from a common ancestor through a process facilitated by natural selection and has nothing to do with the origin of life.

I have now got to the end of your diatribe and all of it appears to be a weak attack on abiogenesis. Nothing about evolution. If your ignorance is of such depth that you cannot even understand this simple distinction there is little point in discussing further.

 

Nothing of what you write after that is fact, or straight, or set even.

That quote applies directly to you, as having been indoctrinated. You have not seen, apparently, the refutations and counter-evidence for the assertions you present as "straight fact". They are thorough, careful, numerous, easily available, and convincing. Honest people have studied these matters carefully, and not relied on blind faith for information about the physical universe.

You can take advantage of their long years of hard work and sound reasoning, give honest and careful consideration to their discoveries and arguments, or you can continue to parrot gibberish as an agent of corrupting others. It's a moral choice.

Faith is one thing. Blind faith is a step. Blinded faith - a holding not only to the unseen but to the deliberately concealed - is corrupted faith. What is the moral judgment on those who blind the faithful, who corrupt faith?

 

Not nowing everything and being baffeld by your own study what betters can you wish for...

 

Yes, there are a number of things horribly wrong about fakeman's refutation.

-Evolutionary theory did not come out of the theory of spontaneous generation. It is in fact, the opposite of it.

- Evolutionary theory did not come from and does not depend on the Miller-Urey experiment, although the experiment does support the idea.

-Your definition of evolution is incorrect.

- There was no oxygen in the early atmosphere, and the proof is to be found in the geology of rocks, particularly iron. Rocks from that period do not show the oxidation that would be expected.

- Even if there was oxygen on Earth, there was none in space, where similar processes could take place to account for organic molecules.

- Besides, organic molecules have now been found in space anyway, which could account for their presence in the early oceans.

But a single cell did not spontaneously generate. Evolution describes a gradual process of increasing complexity. One small step at a time does not require grand leaps of improbability.

No, it doesn't, since the Earth is not a closed system. The tiny increase in order that comes from evolution is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other things going on.

Researchers creating life from scratch

 

Dangerous stuff, fascinating though.

 

Yes, very. I'm a believer of evo myself though.

 

evolution falsified.

Children resemble their parents because the genetic information being expressed in the children was already present in the previous generation, therefore there is nothing really 'new' coming into existence, and therefore no evolution. The finite probability has happened, evolution is falsified.

Mod note: Infraction given for trolling 3 points

 

There were some areas of Fakemans post that I found misleading...perhaps he is using the word chemical when he should have used the words physical perhaps even gravitational process in describing the formation of the Earth but I consider that to be a technicality which in light of the facts he present to be more than an excusable non focus. Moreover through completely different sources I have found some of the same determination of the facts and much of his information of impossible goes much further than the information I had on hand.

In other cases like the fossil record, which he didn't expound upon, I've found to be deficient and completely lacking in transitional fossils. I based that from an artical I recently read dating back to 1980 from the month of October which was the coverage of a Chicago convention in which 150 members of the scientific community held discussion. The subject was Macro-evolution. There were some incredible comments made by evolutionist at his juncture that make me doubt what now is termed as a transitional fossil.


“The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist,” declared Niles Eldridge, paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York. He believes new species arise, not from gradual changes, but in sudden bursts of evolution.

This artical seems to be implying that Macro-evolution wasn't a popular idea at the time and that Niles Eldridge was assigning attention to his theory of the scientific community to alter it's views.

Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard agrees with Eldridge. At the Chicago meeting he declared: “Certainly the record is poor, but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change."

Olson, UCLA paleontologist, said: “I take a dim view of the fossil record as a source of data.”

' Francisco Ayala, a former major advocate of Darwin’s slow changes, added this comment: “I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.”'

Science summed up the controversy: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution [small changes within the species] can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution [big jumps across species boundaries]. . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

If the name of the journal, "Science", is to believed then this for all intents and purposes looks like an honest assement of the preceding back in the year 1980. This looks like a pivotal year and while I don't believe the actical quotes are out of context, evolutionist on watch may contend that they are. What is distrubing by what Science says is the erasure of evidence that this all implies, for it does away with the need to come up with transitional forms. It makes changes happen too fast, the evolutionists contend, for fossils to record the events—but not fast enough for us to see them happening.

I specialize in quotes mostly because I do not have a degree in biology but in Engineering, thus I've seen the best of Evolutionary statements and now I'm observing the rest. From the engineering standpoint Fakemans argements make sense. Time resources and limits must be addressed and it seems time after time evolutionist are claiming there are no limits and yet in the medical and biological world those limits are tested daily. There are limits to how much a line of DNA can be altered by engineering with our current knowledge and that implies that random forces have a far more limited manipulation on DNA.

I digress though. The problem is correct as Fakeman proposes. The text books seem to give a slanted view of the sucess of evolutionary teaching and little to none of the problems illistrated above and as I look into the history the same seems to be true. In the text books I can recall Darwin is herald of Evolution and Observation. While the article isn't defaming evolution it does seem to disagree with the text books and the NAS which consitently state that the fossil record is a variable cornucopia of examples of evolutionary development.

The past is so important in the evolution creation debate. Without this filmstrip of evidence from the fossil record it truely does gives evidence of what one scientist called "special creation." Another artical goes into some depth between the arguments of evolutionist and the contradictions of paleontologist. but the effect seems clear. There seems to be an early and yet unresolved, albeit accepted picture of what the fossil record shows.

Without the Fossil record to illistrate millions of years of history how can it be said with any clarity what millions of years into the future may have it store for life. All the time in our life times may amount to 70 or eighty years. A infestismal fraction of the time necessary to make a rulling on direct observation of evolution. Bacterial adaptations can only go so far as to explain radical restructuring and construction of the life on the Earth.

The reactions to Fakeman's post shake me to my core. Perhaps too much time has already been spent by some on the topic and instead of effective demostrations only the vehemence remains. The expressions above are radical and totalitarian in nature. The call for banning and infractions on individuals is an expression of the supression of knowledge and information something which true science should be well beyond at this point. I realize they do this from the position of "superior" to "inferior". But it may be time to simply let the information speak for itself without the human equation involved.

 

i can disprove rabbits were intelligently designed

 

I just want to say, for those Christians who are constantly debating the theory of evolution. Just because someone believes in evolution, doesnt mean they are going to hell. Instead of trying to prove them wrong, tell them that many Christians believe in evolution, (theistic evolutionists).

 

big difference between life and the chemicals life utilizes - its not much of an advance on what Miller was doing