Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • littlebit: Makes sense.
    July 16, 2017, 04:40:28 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Boards will stay open for a place people can find history information longer. I am not allowing anyone to sign up for now because of so many foreginers just wanting to promote their business..
    December 10, 2016, 05:10:27 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Not sure why didn't look, I may be shutting down these message boards..
    November 17, 2016, 12:42:43 AM
  • ~kathy~: rick why is the timestamp showing up a day in advance?
    September 13, 2016, 12:27:46 AM
  • Valor7: What I tried to say is that the actual money would not be there that quick. But a loan against that would work if they are willing to do that.
    August 08, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Why so long before it comes online? 911 took out a loan or bond with the known guarantee payment and began building..
    August 08, 2016, 07:46:34 AM
  • Valor7: Actually no it is not, a dependable Revenue stream will not come on line until the 4th quarter of 2017 so 2018 budget will be up in the air, not quite sure what they will have. By 2019 budget all will be well.
    August 04, 2016, 09:27:17 PM
  • Valor7: You mean that tax that the Commissioners would not put on the ballot for so many years? Strange things happened when the citizens got a chance to vote on that issue.
    August 03, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Back up is now available withe the new tax..
    August 03, 2016, 05:01:35 PM
  • Valor7: Thanks a lot Ladies!!
    July 29, 2016, 01:16:13 PM
  • littlebit: ((*(*&
    July 27, 2016, 03:47:52 PM
  • ~kathy~: lol
    July 15, 2016, 09:34:56 AM
  • Valor7: A guy could get killed around here while waiting for backup!
    July 13, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
  • Lepard LLC: You are not alone..
    July 13, 2016, 07:28:53 PM
  • Valor7: I just hate it when I talk to myself!!!!
    July 08, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
  • Valor7: I could have worded that better, we talked details, options, the pros and cons of each, in  order to arrive at the best ballot language to present to the voters. Hope that makes this clearer.
    April 15, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
  • Valor7: sorry about the typos still working with just one arm in action
    April 13, 2016, 01:10:42 PM
  • Valor7: Yes and no. We talked details and options until we were blue in the face but I never heardbring it over, it was always the time was not right for the issue to pass. Glad to see the time in now right and I for one shall vote yes on the ballot. I would urge all others to do the sameour county is busting at the seams crimewise and no matter how many bad guys we send off there always seems to someone to replace them. The Sheriff's Office needs the help.
    April 13, 2016, 01:08:35 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Is that true Valor? Did he ask you what you wanted?
    March 01, 2016, 04:55:37 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Gene Newkirk Rick I have waited for a Sheriff to bring it to me on what he wanted. I have pushed Mr long for a while to get it to me. He told me he was close to having or done. Now hopefully the people will get to decide on it. I spoke with Steve about this a few times.
    March 01, 2016, 04:54:54 AM
  • Kimberly: Wow- I have a new name..........
    February 23, 2016, 10:25:15 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Works on mine, improvements are being done here. I may kick back into her a lot and post but working on different technologies right now. Seeing how things interact.
    January 18, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
  • Valor7: Yes it is working. If you need a laugh the wife showed me how to correctly use the silly thing.
    January 04, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
  • Valor7: Think so, mine is trying to work but it is now user and password protected and I dont know mine
    December 17, 2015, 01:32:16 PM
  • "DJ": Is there still a working android app for the PCSD
    December 14, 2015, 08:14:53 PM

Author Topic: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.  (Read 11182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile

Share/Bookmark

Fort Wood Hotel

Boards

Devils Elbow

Attractions

Sports

St. Robert

Waynesville

PC Daily

Dixon

Menu Guide

Fun Links

Homework

Crocker

Fort Wood

Swedeborg

Big Piney

Laquey

Classifieds

Restaurants

Richland

Fort  Hotels

Because we scientists are just f**king tired of "it's just a theory", and "Hey you are relying on 'historical science' and not observational science". Guess what? Creationists should perform hypothesis driven research like the rest of us. All creationists and young earthers do it trash existing science and data, and do nothing at all in providing their own experiments to reject said data, and provide empirical evidence their own "theories" are true.
Hey, creationists, you don't agree that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancenstor? OK, please do some actual experiments and provide actual data that prospectively refutes:
Immunological plasma cross reactivity to determine phylogeny: Demonstrate to us that these experiemnts were incorrectly performed, and then perform them yourselves and acquire positive data that humans do not share a common ancestor with chimpanzees
Mapping of the endogenous retroviruses and GULO pseudogene: Please falsify this series with actual data where you have PRESPECIFIED a hypothesis, and not just "differently interpret" someone else's data - yes I am looking at you Michael Behe
Fusion of 48 into 46 chromosomes (human chromosome 2): Hows about shotgun sequencing all primate chromosomes that are homologous to this, and provide us some evidence AGAINST this event occurring
The entire hominid fossil record: Don't know what to say here, except I have yet to see a creationist paper that measures and quantifies fossil skeletons and skulls and definitively demonstrates that the sub-family Hominidae is just "one species with a huge variability consistent with biblical interpretation" - yes I am looking at you Ken [ass]Ham.
The human genome project: most every single analysis run for the Order Primitae have demonstrated that sequence homology between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas diverged ~6-7 million years ago. No matter how you slice and dice it, nearly every mathematical model and molecular clock comes up with the same conclusion

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2014, 09:39:07 PM »
what is the source of all your "data"?

creationism is not a theory, it is a fact. science cannot replicate anything God has created.

Offline ebilly99

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +338/-153
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2014, 09:48:14 PM »
what is the source of all your "data"?
Testing in a lab over and over again, as well testing by other labs.

creationism is not a theory, it is a fact. science cannot replicate anything God has created.
Really. I mean did you just say we can't make anything god created? How about water, by mixing o2 and hydrogen. I mean really...

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2014, 11:03:28 PM »
Fish is either a troll or a stupid old man, either way ill just ignore him from now on.

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2014, 01:12:41 AM »
where did the o2 and hydrogen come from?

the purpose of the evolution THEORY, the big bang THEORY, and any other THEORY to explain how the universe came about, is to try and prove God didn't create the universe and does not exist. science has failed miserably to disprove God, but does a great job of proving God! LOL LOL

To explain how God created the universe is one thing, He provides all the ingredients scientists use to try to prove their THEORIES, to keep Him out of the discussion of those THEORIES is a deliberate attempt to dismiss the fact God created all. scientist still cannot create anything God has....fact!

Offline ebilly99

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +338/-153
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2014, 01:42:34 AM »
where did the o2 and hydrogen come from?

the purpose of the evolution THEORY, the big bang THEORY, and any other THEORY to explain how the universe came about, is to try and prove God didn't create the universe and does not exist. science has failed miserably to disprove God, but does a great job of proving God! LOL LOL

To explain how God created the universe is one thing, He provides all the ingredients scientists use to try to prove their THEORIES, to keep Him out of the discussion of those THEORIES is a deliberate attempt to dismiss the fact God created all. scientist still cannot create anything God has....fact!
Where did god come from. If he does not require a creator why should a universe. If the universe needs a creator because of it's complexity, why does a god that would be infinitely more complex himself not require a creator?
There are lot's of ideas where the energy of our universe came from (And really that is all the universe is, is energy) however I don't know can not mean that I can add god to make it fit.

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2014, 02:33:55 AM »
Where did God come from is an irrational question. God created time when He created the universe. He had to be outside of time to do that.  a day is like a 1000 yrs and 1000yrs is like a day(paraphrased).God has always been. We are unable to comprehend God. We try to understand/define God in human terms, it doesn't work.

Romans 1: 18-22

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools .

there are consequences for unbelief.

Offline ebilly99

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +338/-153
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2014, 02:51:34 PM »
Where did God come from is an irrational question. God created time when He created the universe.
But in the same stroke you could say that the universe created it's own time. If you say that is not possible than you must accept the same thing from your god.
He had to be outside of time to do that.
If he did it, and what does out side of time exactly mean. Action is a time event. If god did anything than he must exist in his own time bubble, which may not run parralla it must run is some direction... Would this not mean that your god would need a first cause.
  a day is like a 1000 yrs and 1000yrs is like a day(paraphrased).God has always been. We are unable to comprehend God.
If we are unable to comprehend him then who can you use him for any answer. That
We try to understand/define God in human terms, it doesn't work.
Then why bother trying. We do well enough without adding god to the equation.

Romans 1: 18-22

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools .

there are consequences for unbelief.
Jack sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean, so between the twix of them they licked the platter clean.
There are ways around being a pig if your husband loves his veggies.
At least my moral makes sense.

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2014, 09:26:11 PM »
so you lied when you posted this?? Not a surprise! LOL LOL

"I have decided to take the stand for christianity, only because I see the good that is still in it. I will defend the teachings of it against the fundamentalist who strip it of meaning. Christianity is a good, I just need to realize that there are some who would turn it to evil."

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2014, 09:44:58 PM »
 

Chimpanzee

Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?

The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

1.Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.


2.Photo copyrighted.If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).


3.Photo copyrightedIf humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!


4.We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.


5.Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.


6.Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.” Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].


7.Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:



There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

 There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.


The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!
 
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2014, 09:59:42 PM »
Chimp genome sequence very different from man

by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D., director, Center for Creation Studies, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, USA

5 September 2005

For many years, evolutionary scientists—and science museums and zoos—have hailed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative” and have pointed to the similarity in DNA sequences between the two as evidence. In most previous studies, they have announced 98-99% identical DNA.1 However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA.

Last week, in a special issue of Nature devoted to chimpanzees, researchers report the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome.2 No doubt, this is a stunning achievement for science: deciphering the entire genetic make up of the chimpanzee in just a few years. Researchers called it “the most dramatic confirmation yet” of Darwin’s theory that man shared a common ancestor with the apes. One headline read: “Charles Darwin was right and chimp gene map proves it.”3

So what is this great and overwhelming “proof” of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years!4 The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.

Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40–45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. (Substitutions and insertions are compared in Figure 1.) This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.


Substitution

Insertion/deletion

Illustration of nucleotide substitution effect  Illustration of nucleotide insertion/deletion effect

Figure 1. Comparison between a base substitution and an insertion/deletion. Two DNA sequences can be compared. If there is a difference in the nucleotides (an A instead of a G) this is a substitution. In contrast, if there is a nucleotide base which is missing it is considered an insertion/deletion. It is assumed that a nucleotide has been inserted into one of the sequences or one has been deleted from the other. It is often too difficult to determine whether the difference is a result of an insertion or a deletion and thus it is called an “indel.” Indels can be of virtually any length.
 

To put this number into perspective, a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such full pages of text to equal 40 million letters! So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.

Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations—a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma.” This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.

Some scientists are surprised at the anatomical, physical and behavioral differences between man and chimpanzee when they see so much apparent genetic similarity. With a philosophy that excludes a Creator God, they are forced to accept similarity as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity can also be the result of a common Designer.

It is the differences that make the difference. The most important difference is that man is created in the image of God.

Dr. DeWitt is the director of the Center for Creation Studies and an associate professor of biology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, USA. His Ph.D. is in neurosciences from Case Western Reserve University and the focus of his research is the cell biology of Alzheimer’s disease.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2014, 10:07:49 PM »
Fresh findings in the field of genetics have directly challenged yet another key evolutionary hypothesis by showing that the differences between humans and apes cannot be easily accounted for under the theory of evolution.

A recent 12-page journal article, written by three scientists in Spain and published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, details the results of careful analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA. After comparing and contrasting thousands of orthologous genes from humans and chimps, the scientists found their final data to be very much at odds with evolutionary theory. In fact, they even titled their article “Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee—A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory.”

Why are these findings seen as a “new twist” to the evolutionary theory? In short, because many scientists have claimed that genetic differences between humans and apes can be attributed to a process known as “genetic recombination,” which is a phenomenon that generates slight genetic variation via meiosis. However, this new journal article seriously calls this proposition into question.

In their research, the three Spanish scientists scrutinized differences between human and chimp genes, expecting to find higher genetic recombination rates in these areas of dissimilarity. Even though studies of human-chimp similarities have been conducted in years past, this particular research was unprecedented because the scientists took advantage of new, high-resolution genome maps.

 

 
Ultimately, the study results were contradictory to what evolutionists had theorized. Not only were genetic recombination rates markedly low in areas of human-chimp DNA differences (“rearranged” chromosomes), but the rates were much higher in areas of genetic similarity (“collinear” chromosomes). This is the reverse of what evolutionists had predicted.

“The analysis of the most recent human and chimpanzee recombination maps inferred from genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism data,” the scientists explained, “revealed that the standardized recombination rate was significantly lower in rearranged than in collinear chromosomes.”

Jeffrey Tomkins, a Ph.D. geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), told the Christian News Network that these results were “totally backwards” from what evolutionists had predicted, since genetic recombination is “not occurring where it’s supposed to” under current evolutionary theory.


Connect with Christian News   

Dr. Tomkins further emphasized that evolutionists greatly exaggerate the genetic similarities between humans and chimps, and often ignore areas of DNA where major differences do exist.

“It’s called cherry-picking the data,” he explained. “There are many genetic regions between humans and chimps that are radically different. In fact, humans have many sections of DNA that are missing in chimps and vice versa. Recent research is now showing that the genomes are only 70% similar overall.”

This is not the first time scientists have questioned evolutionists’ assertions regarding humans’ and chimps’ similarities. David DeWitt, a biochemist and Ph.D. neuroscientist, reiterated in an article for Answers in Genesis that evolutionary scientists commonly underestimate the genetic dissimilarities between humans and apes by significant margins. And even relatively small percentage differences equate to formidable genetic discrepancies.

“If 5% of the DNA [between humans and apes] is different,” Dr. DeWitt points out, “this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!”

Ultimately, Dr. Tomkins concluded, genetic evidence is once again stacking up against evolutionary scientists, forcing them to revise their theories.

“Evolutionists are having a lot of problems dealing with current studies in DNA research,” he stated. “Their predictions based on their naturalistic presuppositions are consistently being overturned by scientific discovery. Because they cannot accept the idea of a Creator, they simply change their theory to adapt. The only thing that appears to be evolving is ‘evolution,’ and it’s becoming more and more absurd.”
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline shadylane

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2196
  • Karma: +1060777/-13445
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2014, 01:10:49 AM »
Fish is either a troll or a stupid old man, either way ill just ignore him from now on.

It's not that easy.
Fish and others like him want public schools to teach evangelical religious beliefs.
Also, courts of law and politicians to side with them.



"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?"

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2014, 01:55:31 AM »
quite a fantasy you are living shady! LOL LOL any proof??? nope!!!LOL LOL LOL

Offline ebilly99

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +338/-153
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2014, 04:05:15 AM »
quite a fantasy you are living shady! LOL LOL any proof??? nope!!!LOL LOL LOL
Fish fundies have fought, and lost lawsuit after lawsuit to try to get religion taught in science class. The fact that less then one percent of congress is non-religion is proof that there is a Bias against reason in government. (And we wonder why our government is a failure. Thank you, thank you) Whats that, what just hit the fan.  $%$#@%^

Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2014, 11:27:10 AM »
Three scientist from Spain huh? Wonder why the were not named..

Now let's examine the guy who is named and let's ponder who cuts his pay check and expects him to help this grand cover up called religion?

Jeffrey Tomkins, a Ph.D. geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) << Now there is a guy who can not possibly be biased. Did you notice that you never find articles for Evolution written by guys working for Atheists? That is because all you read on that front come from real scientists not paid fake ones. You have to work hard to convince those who are smarter than you that God exists, even Christians with some brains can't do that ,yet Mark is gonna do it. Good luck with that skippy..


Fresh findings in the field of genetics have directly challenged yet another key evolutionary hypothesis by showing that the differences between humans and apes cannot be easily accounted for under the theory of evolution.

A recent 12-page journal article, written by three scientists in Spain and published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, details the results of careful analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA. After comparing and contrasting thousands of orthologous genes from humans and chimps, the scientists found their final data to be very much at odds with evolutionary theory. In fact, they even titled their article “Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee—A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory.”

Why are these findings seen as a “new twist” to the evolutionary theory? In short, because many scientists have claimed that genetic differences between humans and apes can be attributed to a process known as “genetic recombination,” which is a phenomenon that generates slight genetic variation via meiosis. However, this new journal article seriously calls this proposition into question.

In their research, the three Spanish scientists scrutinized differences between human and chimp genes, expecting to find higher genetic recombination rates in these areas of dissimilarity. Even though studies of human-chimp similarities have been conducted in years past, this particular research was unprecedented because the scientists took advantage of new, high-resolution genome maps.

 

 
Ultimately, the study results were contradictory to what evolutionists had theorized. Not only were genetic recombination rates markedly low in areas of human-chimp DNA differences (“rearranged” chromosomes), but the rates were much higher in areas of genetic similarity (“collinear” chromosomes). This is the reverse of what evolutionists had predicted.

“The analysis of the most recent human and chimpanzee recombination maps inferred from genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism data,” the scientists explained, “revealed that the standardized recombination rate was significantly lower in rearranged than in collinear chromosomes.”

Jeffrey Tomkins, a Ph.D. geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), told the Christian News Network that these results were “totally backwards” from what evolutionists had predicted, since genetic recombination is “not occurring where it’s supposed to” under current evolutionary theory.


Connect with Christian News   

Dr. Tomkins further emphasized that evolutionists greatly exaggerate the genetic similarities between humans and chimps, and often ignore areas of DNA where major differences do exist.

“It’s called cherry-picking the data,” he explained. “There are many genetic regions between humans and chimps that are radically different. In fact, humans have many sections of DNA that are missing in chimps and vice versa. Recent research is now showing that the genomes are only 70% similar overall.”

This is not the first time scientists have questioned evolutionists’ assertions regarding humans’ and chimps’ similarities. David DeWitt, a biochemist and Ph.D. neuroscientist, reiterated in an article for Answers in Genesis that evolutionary scientists commonly underestimate the genetic dissimilarities between humans and apes by significant margins. And even relatively small percentage differences equate to formidable genetic discrepancies.

“If 5% of the DNA [between humans and apes] is different,” Dr. DeWitt points out, “this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!”

Ultimately, Dr. Tomkins concluded, genetic evidence is once again stacking up against evolutionary scientists, forcing them to revise their theories.

“Evolutionists are having a lot of problems dealing with current studies in DNA research,” he stated. “Their predictions based on their naturalistic presuppositions are consistently being overturned by scientific discovery. Because they cannot accept the idea of a Creator, they simply change their theory to adapt. The only thing that appears to be evolving is ‘evolution,’ and it’s becoming more and more absurd.”


Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2014, 11:31:29 AM »
Now let's look at one more article where You unbiased scientist says genetics prove the Christian timeline, LOL.. What a f**king idiot he is.. Hardly any Christians still claim that the earth is only 6000 years old as that has also been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but Mark is gonna convince the world he knows better. good luck with that skippy.

http://www.icr.org/article/genetics-research-confirms-biblical/




Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2014, 11:35:02 AM »
Science is a big threat to Christians and they now have to pay people to say differently, it is stupid and such a waste of the money they steal from sick old people.


Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2014, 12:29:27 PM »
One third of the earths population are Christians.......Yet the atheists from poolaski co. think they are smarter than all those people.  LOL
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2014, 12:42:55 PM »
proof ebilly?

so this is another lie you posted?

"I have decided to take the stand for christianity, only because I see the good that is still in it. I will defend the teachings of it against the fundamentalist who strip it of meaning. Christianity is a good, I just need to realize that there are some who would turn it to evil."

Offline ebilly99

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +338/-153
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2014, 12:48:14 PM »
One third of the earths population are Christians.......Yet the atheists from poolaski co. think they are smarter than all those people.  LOL
In a word... Yes.

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2014, 12:54:02 PM »
so you no longer stand by this statement you posted?


"I have decided to take the stand for christianity, only because I see the good that is still in it. I will defend the teachings of it against the fundamentalist who strip it of meaning. Christianity is a good, I just need to realize that there are some who would turn it to evil."

Offline ebilly99

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +338/-153
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #23 on: March 26, 2014, 12:56:44 PM »
proof ebilly?

so this is another lie you posted?

"I have decided to take the stand for christianity, only because I see the good that is still in it. I will defend the teachings of it against the fundamentalist who strip it of meaning. Christianity is a good, I just need to realize that there are some who would turn it to evil."
Yes taking a stand for christianity, not your messed up dream of a westboro baptist church. Just because the bible is false does not mean that there are gems among the rocks. And what proof are you asking for. That creationism has lost court cases. Is that really what you are asking for. Unlike you I will give you proof because you are too lazy to do a simple web search, http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/a/EvolutionCourtCases.htm

And when I was hungry did you feed me, When I was in prison did you visit me... Perhaps if jesus was alive today he would add. If I was hungry would you teach me to fish. When you alter the real truth, the truth of science, you are not properly teaching a person to "Fish" (Fish meaning to get the best education so they can get meaningful jobs out of school because I know you wouldn't understand if I didn't explain)

Offline littlebit

  • Cunning Linguist
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 12946
  • Karma: +2370369/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Home is what you make it.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2014, 01:19:04 PM »
I think the problem Fish and Mark have with scientific theory is that they confuse it with the layman's definition of theory.

Here is a link for anyone who wants to learn the difference...

http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/08/theory-scientific-vs-laymans-definition/
Some people are like Slinkies... Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

I'd give my left arm to be ambidextrous...


“The truth is, everyone is going to end up hurting you. You just have to find the ones who are worth suffering for.”

Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2014, 02:56:43 PM »
Yes and no, your numbers are way off..

One third of the earths population are Christians.......Yet the atheists from poolaski co. think they are smarter than all those people.  LOL

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2014, 03:33:08 PM »
We have tried many times over to teach them the difference between theory and scientific theory.  They do not see the difference because it doesnt fit their own beliefs.

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2014, 04:02:39 PM »
The Scientific Case Against Evolution

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2014, 04:03:20 PM »
Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30

Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2014, 04:29:25 PM »
Institution for creation research.......Apparently he doesnt understand what bias is either.

Mark you do understand that it is possible to just copy a paragraph from the text google it and see where its from right?