Kevin's Watch

Murrin wrote:The lack of evidence to say whether or not the supernatural even exists justifies the assumption that it does not affect the natural. To assume the supernatural existing and affecting the natural, we'd also have to assume the nature of the supernatural, and assume the way in which it affects the natural. This would be virtually impossible to do, since there is no evidence for the supernatural. In such a case, any and all theories concerning the supernatural would have to be given equal credence, leading to the status where every person who has an idea about the supernatural will come up with a conflicting model for the way in which the natural works. In essence, it would completely destroy the chances of any kind of standard scientific model being reached.

Avatar wrote:CybrWeez, I'm struggling with this one. It's not reasonable to request evidence of god because he "exists" in the realm of the supernatural? But it is reasonable to discredit evolution because god exists in the realm of the supernatural?

I mean, the opposition to evolution, based on the fact of (supposed) lack of evidence is quite happy to accept creation with a far more glaring (to me at least) lack of evidence. And that's all right, because god doesn't exist in the "natural" realm, meaning that faith (and creation) doesn't require evidence, but evolution does?

I must be missing something here.

Kinslaughterer wrote:Yes, I'm paying attention. I called him a hack because he didn't even test his own hypothesis. Much like a creationist, he simply stated this doesn't make any sense, then a group of leading biochemists shreaded his argument by actually testing it.

You are bordering on ignorance when you can quote two people for your argument and have failed to read the other side. If all you spout is creationism or some creationist supporter (and despite the trappings Behe is just that)

Lord Foul wrote:

Cybrweez wrote:Edge, a new species being created from an existing species is observable, its what micro-evolution is. However, Lord Foul's statement that "evolution" is fact is questionable, b/c what type of evolution is he talking about? If he believes macro-evolution is a fact, then there is no use debating w/him.

To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

Unfortunately but honestly Behe later stated: "Demonstration that a system is irreducibly complex is not a proof that there is absolutely no gradual route to its production" (21), thereby undermining the beauty and power of his falsificator. But Behe did more to undermine his falsificator of Darwinism. In an article in the journal Biology and Philosophy (29) Behe stated "A weak point of Darwinian theory is its resistance to falsification. What experimental evidence could possibly be found that would falsify the contention that complex molecular machines evolved by a Darwinian mechanism? I can think of none". I can think of none? This is an extremely amazing claim. Behe forgets his own mousetraps! What was the point of writing Darwin's Black Box? What was the point of the concept 'irreducible complexity'? What was the point of the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting system, if not refuting their Darwinian origin?

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance over time are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

(2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil is a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

(3) The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered — certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the “record” was conveniently changed to conform with their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.

(4) The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

5) Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

Likewise, when evolutionists argue that similarity in structure or function among various organisms proves evolution, they are mistaken. In actuality, similarity of structure or function proves nothing more than similarity of structure or function because it is very reasonable to assume that a Divine Creator would utilize a single master plan for creation that would consistently adhere to a limited number of basic variations.

(6) Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.

Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects which possess delicately-balanced attibutes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change. Instead, it required a Creator to bring such life-forms into existence in a mere moment of time.

(7) Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

(8) Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By “absolute nothingness,” I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.

(9) One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true.

Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.

(10) Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor — but no free oxygen.

Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. (See, e.g., "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere" by Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham in the March 1982 issue of GEOLOGY.) In other words, evolution could not have even started.


(11) Over the years there have been a number of frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are "missing links" to be found in the fossil record. These frauds and blunders have included:

* Eoanthropus dawsoni, popularly know as the "Piltdown Man"

* Arachaeopteryx, sometimes called the "Piltdown Chicken"

* "The Orgueil Fall"

* Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, meaning "Western ape-man"

* Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "erect ape-man"

* Australopithicines, meaning "Southern Apes."

The sad reality is that school children often are still taught that the aforementioned frauds prove the theory of evolution beyond any doubt.

Sometimes people will say that science and religion do not meet within the realm of human existence because they touch on completely different, unrelated levels of reality. Hence the assertion that science can not prove or disprove the validity of religious belief. Meanwhile, others will claim that science actually disproves the validity of Christian faith.

However, my immediate response to all such assertions is this. If the evidence of history, science, ethics, values and psychology did not prove the truth claims of biblical Christianity beyond any reasonable doubt for an intellectually-honest person, I would not even be a Christian.

Because "true faith" is belief based upon reason and factual evidence and intellectual honesty; it is not blind, emotional faith based upon hypotheses and presuppositions which arbitrarily exclude vital evidence and/or alternative explanations that are more consistent with the organized complexity of our world and universe.

That is why Jesus said that we should love God with all of our heart, and soul and MIND, meaning we should love God, Ultimate Reality and Ultimate Truth, on all levels of human existence, including the emotional, the intellectual and the spiritual. Thus, our worldview of reality should encompass the entirety of human experience in a comprehensive coherent whole.

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance over time are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

(2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil is a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

(3) The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered — certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the “record” was conveniently changed to conform with their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.

(4) The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

5) Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

Likewise, when evolutionists argue that similarity in structure or function among various organisms proves evolution, they are mistaken. In actuality, similarity of structure or function proves nothing more than similarity of structure or function because it is very reasonable to assume that a Divine Creator would utilize a single master plan for creation that would consistently adhere to a limited number of basic variations.

(6) Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.

Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects which possess delicately-balanced attibutes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change. Instead, it required a Creator to bring such life-forms into existence in a mere moment of time.

(7) Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

(8) Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By “absolute nothingness,” I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.

(9) One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true.

Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.

(10) Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor — but no free oxygen.

Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. (See, e.g., "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere" by Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham in the March 1982 issue of GEOLOGY.) In other words, evolution could not have even started.

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance over time are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "erect ape-man"

* Australopithicines, meaning "Southern Apes."

The fossils

The fossils do not carry signs saying how old they are. Their age is generally assigned to them, depending on their relative depth of burial. Those in the deepest rock layers have the greatest ages assigned to them. Based on the biblical framework, we should expect many, but not all, fossils to have been buried during the Flood, so the oldest would really be only about 4,500 years old. Fossils higher up may have been buried by local catastrophes since the Flood.

Sheriff Lytton, who has decided to spread the word of His Lord Bill Hicks, wrote:Ever notice how people who oppose the theory of evolution look really unevolved ?

Cybrweez wrote:Its been stated here that evolution, and I'm assuming macro-evolution is meant, is a fact. Man, even just saying that makes me laugh. Some are just curious where macro-evolution has been observed.

............

But I'm questioning evolution, b/c of the many problems. Whether there is a God or not doesn't deal w/the issue of problems in evolution.

Kinslaughterer wrote:Ok, let's start from 0.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time.

ur-bane wrote:The dating techniques that are used to verify authenticity of original bible manuscripts are acceptable, because they fit the creationist argument, but those same techniques are simply "thrown out the window" when it comes to fossil records? Amazing how that works, no?