News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Evolution a joke?

Started by Asmodean Prime, September 26, 2006, 06:27:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Asmodean Prime

EVIDENCE AGAINST THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.

"Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ([22], p.19-20)

"If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world." ([18], p.34)

"Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function." ([22], p.25)

"There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." ([22], p.20)

"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time." ([11], p.57)

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order". It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.

"All the `information' for the development of each particular organism was already `encoded' in the DNA of its parent. They must reproduce `after their kinds'." ([18], p.25)

"Although the number of varieties or races that may be established from an original kind is undoubtedly quite large, it is clear that there are definite limits to this or even speciation has no true evolutionary significance. New varieties are established, but not new kinds." ([18], p.26)

"Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation." ([11], p.32)

Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true." ([19], p.35) A seed, for example, being genetically complete, provides the negative entropy for the growth of a tree.

Regarding the first law of thermodynamics (stating that a constant amount of energy is maintained) it is observed, "...all matter in the universe is some form of energy...(and) the total amount of energy in the universe always remains constant (or the same), and, therefore, energy itself is neither destroyed (that is, reduced to nothing) or created from nothing by any natural process. ([19], p.32)
These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law).

Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible. ([18], p.46)

It is noted that the `urge' to evolve is not at all found in chemistry. ([4], p.357)

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life. Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing. This is a logical absurdity. The cell principle, excepted in Biology and all science, states that all cells come from only pre-existing cells. We certainly observe that life does not derive from non-life now.Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world. Morality is generally accepted as a distinct characteristic of humanity. This in itself creates an unbridgeable gap between people and animals.

"The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech." ([11], p.102)

"The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order." ([22], p.15)

Wallace along with famous evolutionist Robert Broom concluded "Divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the qualities that made Homo Sapiens so special." ([15], p.26)

Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: "Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative." "Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative." "Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative." "On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative." ([19], p.362)

Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw.

Evolutionist declared it to be a hominid for forty-five years without having done an in depth study of it.  ([8], p.24-25) Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and then placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look identical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of hominids. The brow ridge that supposedly marked the hominid appears only in one skull.

Similarly, hominids (supposed in betweens) are declared on the basis of such things as a piece of a leg bone, a hip, or a knee piece, etc. (see picture #4) ([12], p.111; [2], p.51; [9], p.157)

Orce man was based on the skull cap of a donkey.

Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away." ([3], p.83)

The Boisei skull was broken in 400 pieces but pieced together and declared as all from the same skull.

Biochemists Allen Wilson and Vincent Sarich discovered that the first people had to originate less than 200,000 years ago and could only have come from an original two people. This made virtually all the paleontologist's dates wrong and made all the posited bushes of human origins incorrect. ([15], p.130-131)

After fifteen years, the paleontologists reluctantly accepted the biochemistry evidence. "We anthropologists were forced to admit we had been wrong and that Sarich and Wilson were closer to the right track than any of us had even imagined." Paleontologist Richard Leakey. ([13], p.78)

Evidence #5
The first nine of the twelve popularly regarded hominids put forth by evolutionists by bone and skull finds have been demonstrated as being extinct apes or monkeys and not part human at all. The discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/ apes. Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either. The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past. These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.

"Dr. Charles Oxnard, (professor of anatomy), ...studied the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) of Australopithecus. He employed the very latest techniques for his research. Dr. Oxnard, even though he is not a creationist, has declared that his research has established that these creatures did not walk upright like humans, that they were not intermediate between apes and man...Other scientists have come to somewhat similar conclusions." ([1], p.84)

Therefore, Solly Zuckerman and many other conclude (paraphrase), "...variation among ape fossils is sufficiently great (such) that a scientist whose imagination was fired by the desire to find ancestors could easily pick out some features in an ape fossil and decide that they were `pre-human'." ([11], p.82)

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human but not as something in between. The last three of the popular twelve hominids have been demonstrated as being modern human beings. Human skulls naturally vary in size and many other characteristics. They often also are misshapen by certain diseases such as rickets, arthritis, Paget's disease, congenital syphilis, and starvation. Skulls found with diseases or normal human variations could lead one to suppose that certain modern human skulls are something less than human. This has been a great mistake by evolutionists who not only have failed to recognize variance in human skulls but also to make the public aware of it as well.

Variance in human skulls should have been expected. The encyclopedia The Human Body notes, "The skull of man demonstrates many variations." Among them is "the pronounced brow ridges." ([21], p.112) (picture #18)

Naturally, we find these three supposed hominids to be the only finds to be located where monkeys and apes are not found. ([12], p.88)

Evidence #6
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies. Socially, natural selection argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible. Thus barbarianism is demanded by natural selection with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection. Practically, natural selection has the following and many other inconsistencies: (a.) The natural selection process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example. (b.) Natural selection requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived without basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism. (c.) Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder. Natural Selection commends savages who eliminate the weak. It commended the ruthless takeover of the Native Indian of North America, the destruction of Jews in the Holocaust, and all other acts where the powerful ruthlessly have their way. It names all who kill as better. It would name a country that destroys all others as best.

Even animals, however, exhibit altruism. Walruses sacrifice their lives for their young. Some heard animals provide warning signals for the herd which put themselves at personal risk. Bees and ants function together and not merely in competition. And, of course, so do people do all these things. Yet Darwin stated, "If it could be proved that any species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory for such could not have been produced through natural selection. ([11], p.30)

Creation, as we find it, must have been made complete and functional from the beginning.In addition, we find that there simply is not nearly enough time for change as is given by pro-theory people. If no change has occurred in the last 4,000, it is unreasonable to suppose so much change (or any for that matter) could have occurred in 25,000,000 years. This figure is only about 6,000 times 4,000. Therefore, if we take the amount of change over the last 4,000 years and multiply it by 6,000 we do not nearly get the change evolutionists propose. In fact, we get no change or no evolution. Evolutionists themselves say that species remain unchanged in fossil records for an average of 10,000,000 years. Therefore, how could 60,000,000 years, or even many more, make a creature change in any noticeable way?

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies. Natural selection has these and many other logical inconsistencies: (a.) Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. (b.) The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all come from the same ancestor. (c.) If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow. (d.) While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed (a baby to an adult, a seed to a tree) it is also true that the small and undeveloped first come from the developed (a baby from its parents, a seed from a tree). The pattern of growth is circular not simply from the crude to the developed as natural selection proposes. (e.) Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be explained if all that we do is for survival. (f.) Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance.

Similarity among living things does not point to evolution. "There is no more reason to believe that man descended from some inferior animal as there is to believe that a stately mansion has descended from a cottage." ([4], p.357)

"The first crude engine, the Rocket, came, not from still a cruder engine, but from something much more perfect than itself and much more complex, the mind of man..." ([4], p.388) Famous philosopher C.S. Lewis.

Evidence #7
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
The Rock Strata is better explained by a universal flood than by gradual normal death of organisms over millions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionists assert. A large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place. Fossils require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed. Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria. The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason. Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low. A universal flood has been well documented historically as having occurred. Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account but not the evolutionary process. In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layer which supposedly formed over millions of years.

"...in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers which indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years..." ([22], p.28)

A catastrophe such as a universal flood is necessary for fossils to form. "Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure so that their bones or imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure, they will not be fossilized. Most of the many millions of fossils in the world are found in rock which has been affected by water, and, therefore, the fossils of these animals were formed as a result of the animals being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure." ([22], p.27)

An evolutionist geologist wrote, "A carcass after death is almost sure to be torn apart or devoured by carnivores or other scavengers, and if it escapes these larger enemies, bacteria insure the decay of all but the hard parts, and even they crumble to dust after a few years if exposed to the weather. If buried under moist sediment or standing water, however, weathering is prevented, decay is greatly reduced, and scavengers cannot disturb the remains. For these reasons burial soon after death is the most important condition favoring preservation...Water-borne sediments are so much more widely distributed than all other kinds, that they include the great majority of all fossils. Flooded streams drown and bury their victims in the shifting channel sands or in the mud of the valley floor." ([19], p.63)

The flood would have to have been a universal one since local floods would not have produced the pressure that would be needed. ([15], p.27)

An event of a universal flood is accounted for "...by hundreds of reflections of this...great event handed down in the legends and historical records of practically all nations and tribes in the earth." ([19], p.65)

Bias Towards Evolution
Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclusions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occurred. (And other final considerations.)

"Paleontologists seem to have thought it their duty to protect the rest of us from the erroneous conclusions we might have drawn if we had known the actual state of the evidence." ([11], p.59)

"We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner ([19], p.91)

"...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution ([4], p.363)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22)

"Evolution is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith ([22], p.22)

Darwin: "I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." ([23], p.59)

Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.

Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be? ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law. We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
Life is complex.
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species? ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too! Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.
Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved? ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.
Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient! ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.
Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?
It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed? ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.
Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly
It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it? ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be show able and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.
Complex things require intelligent design folks!
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?

References
(Works consulted but not cited are not listed.)
PRO-THEORY OF EVOLUTION / ANTI-CREATIONISM
> [2] Falk, Dean. Braindance, NY: Henry Holt and Co., 1992.
[5] Growlett, John. Ascent to Civilization, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.
[8] Howell, F. Clark. Early Man, NY: Time Life Books, 1973.
[9] Johanson, David, and Maitland, Edy. Lucy, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981.
[10] Johanson, David, and Shreeve, James. Lucy's Child, NY: William Morrow and Co., 1989.
[12] Leakey, Richard, and Lewin, Roger. Origins, NY: E.P. Dutten, 1977.
> [13] Leakey, Richard, and Lewin, Roger. Origins Reconsidered, NY: Doubleday, 1992.
> [14] Lewin, Roger. Bones of Contention, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
> [15] Lewin, Roger. In the Age of Mankind, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988.
[20] Pfieffer, John. The Emergence of Man, NY: Harper and Row, 1969.
[23] Wendt, Herbert. From Ape to Man, NY: The Bubbs Merril Co., 1972.
ANTI-THEORY OF EVOLUTION / PRO-CREATIONISM
[1] Bliss, Richard. Origins: Creation or Evolution? El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988.
[3] Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990.
[4] Graham, Keith, et al. Biology Pensacola, FL: A Beka Book Publications, 1986.
[7] Ham, ken, et. al. The Answers book, El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1992.
> [11] Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
> [16] McDowell, Josh and Stewart, Don. Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1981.
[17] Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.
> [18] Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1988.
[19] Morris, Henry M. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.
> [22] Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.
[24] Whitcomb, John. The Early Earth, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.
NEUTRAL REFERENCE WORKS
[6] Grzimek, Bernhard, ed. Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984.
[21] Pinchot, Roy, ed. The Human Body, "The Skeleton", NY: Torster Books, 1985.

Jassman

#1
Quote from: "northgerrit2134"There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.
Quote from: "northgerrit2134"...fish to amphibian...

Tiktaalik?

Quote from: "northgerrit2134"...reptile to bird...

Archaeopteryx?

Quote from: "northgerrit2134"There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.

And there always will be. Not every generation left tangible fossils, and not every fossil will be found.

Quote from: "northgerrit2134"Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world.


Great gaps in what? Organism differerentiation? If this is your claim, then I would like to point you to many organisms that possess many similarities:

Wikipedia: List of Ant Genera

That's a list of the different ant species. All of them have six legs and many other striking resemblances. If this is not what you mean by the quote you posted then please clarify the point you are trying to make.

Quote from: "northgerrit2134"There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present.

Could you please explain to me what constitutes a "partially evolved animal or plant"? The term does not make sense. Everything would in fact be considered partially evolved or, more accurately, completely evolved.

Quote from: "northgerrit2134"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time.

Yeah, the "fossil problem" is getting worse and worse as we continue to find more and more fossils. I hardly consider ungrounded quotations by confused authors as evidence against evolution.

I'll go through Evidence #2 when I have some more time...
[size=75]"You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?" -Bill Hicks[/size]

[size=75]I'm drowning in the fear of gods. The more I see the less I want. I was not raised

McQ

#2
If it looks like a troll and walks, talks, smells, and acts like a troll, then guess what? It's a troll.

Ah yes. There's nothing like a troll who can only parrot the idiotic pap he's read or heard from a creationist manual.

Don't even bother responding to the massive dump that northgerrit just took in the forum. Since it's all wrong to begin with there's no point.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Jassman

#3
You're probably right. But I like giving people the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves a chance, right?
[size=75]"You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?" -Bill Hicks[/size]

[size=75]I'm drowning in the fear of gods. The more I see the less I want. I was not raised

McQ

#4
Hey, Jassman, if you've got the time and the patience, go for it! I don't respond to trolls any more, except to say that they are trolls. If the post hadn't been one massive "cut and paste" exercise, it might have been less troll-like. This isn't someone who is interested in finding out anything, let alone admit to being wrong about pages of crap that he cut and pasted.

So have at it. It will be the most interesting thing to happen here since "what's-his-name" got banned.  :D
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Whitney

#5
Oh great...a post and run(?)

I admit I didn't read all that stuff (I have better things to do) but a quick skim shows me that it is filled with false claims and the writer totally lacks an understanding of how evolution works:  "How would intermidates survive?"....geesh, this guy must think that evolution theory claims that some early organism was walking around with half a modern eye.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother with a response unless the OP returns or another member joins in who finds the post worthy of discussion.

edit:  well I will repsond a bit just for someone who may pass by and read this thread...and by a bit I mean a few little diagrams:

Missing Links:

ancestor<----->missing link<----->modern organism

We found the missing link...cool, lets name it Bob.

ancestor<----->missing link<----->Bob<----->missing link<------>modern organism

We found the new missing links, pats self on back....lets name them Julie and George.

ancestor<----->missing link<----->Julie<------>missing link<----->Bob<---->missing link<------>George<------->missing link<----->modern organism


Essentially, for each "missing link" we find the amount of missing links double, as long as there are those who are hard headed enough to reject the mountains of evidence that exist for evolution in favor of a fairy tale version of creation then there will always be something which can be claimed as a missing link.  In the future they will be claiming that the links aren't close enough together because one has slightly longer fingers than the other and it's not possible for finger length to change over the given time period (that's just a random example, but it gets the point across).

Big Mac

#6
I wonder if being stupid hurts. Or is it bad for your blood pressure, or other varoius ailments.

At no point in your rambling, incoherent post did you make sense anywhere. We are all now dumber for having heard it. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

By the way, the Big Bang theory is a seperate theory.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"And what if pigs shit candy?

Fourth Iteration

#7
First of all, let's not try and disprove evolution. It is a fact not only among the science savvy that it takes place. The question at hand then is, macro-evolution perhaps? In which case, everyone's right. We've found plenty of links, and of those not found, many haven't survived the ages.

Okay, I went back and finished that incredibly lengthy paragraph at the end and you DID mention macro-evolution. For that, I award you one point of the dignity I tried to deduct above, and give you one free roll with a D-20

Do you truly believe that being sociable creatures we escape evolution (which doesn't exist anyway, right?). Okay, so we can feel sympathy, pleasure, love, compasion.... and envy, pain, hate, and cruelty. Do any of these emotions stop one from striving for what goals they wish attain. Most of the time no. Okay, so we feel bad about doing bad (some of us at least) that doesn't change anything most of the time. And as far as being unique because we feel emotions, ALL of them are biochemical impulses. Some come from current surroundings, others from the environment growing up. We feel because we were programmed to, or we don't because we were programmed not to.

Okay, I like you using the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support your arguement. Someone I once respected greatly also did the same (and did it well.). But perhaps you are misinterpreting evolution in respects to it. When creatures evolve and become new unique characters how is this getting simpler? WE are putting them into more specific categories, but that's only because we're anal and need to classify everything as specifically as possible. They themselves are branching into more subclasses than the species previously had... Ummm..... yeah, there's no way that that is getting more complex and less organized. Get it? WE are the ones who organize them, not the creatures themselves. If all woodchucks were killed off and only the Crimson Crowned Canadian Woodchuck (which to my knowledge doesn't exist) was remaining... THAT is making things simpler by far! And it took energy on my part, not to mention the cash to afford woodchuck grade rifle rounds. That is the opposite of evolution, eradication (well, not the opposite persay, but its not like they have anything in common either!). There, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is now supporting evolution.

/Looks up from First Edition Book        As you argue in the court of the High Lord Wagner, unsuspectedly your accomplices bow before him. "Hahahaha, you trusted us too deeply without knowing who we really were!" remarked the Second Law of Thermodynamics as Emotion started arguing with herself yet again. Then the lord rose and - Quick do a saving throw against blasphemy! - ... If you desire next time I'll actually reference books to combat your's,but I think talking about biological and chemical laws and properties with a Biochemist was enough. Know your enemy is rule number one, and know the terrain is the second. C'mon. Do a little more research before pulling laws out of a hat.
"Inevitably, underlying instabilities begin to appear..." - Ian Malcolm

MikeyV

#8
I wouldn't bother replying. This dickhead is making the rounds to atheist forums, and posting just one post.

He made the EXACT same post over at IIDB as seen here.

It's a cut and paste job from this site.

Drive by xian dickheads. How I hate them.
Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things. One is that God loves
you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the
most awful, dirty thing on the face of the earth and you should save
it for someone you love.
   
   -- Butch Hancock.

McQ

#9
Yep. Did I call it, or did I call it?

Stupid troll.

Thanks for the heads up, Mikey.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Squid

#10
It looks like a cut and paste, smells like a cut and paste....

...yep, cut and paste:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm (Damn, I just saw that MikeyV beat me to it).

Unless northgerrit2134 is Doug LaPointe which I highly doubt.

I'm working on a rebuttal to a long essay which has some of these exact arguments - even worded similarly...hmm, I wonder if the guy who wrote the essay I'm rebutting is guilty of plagairism...hmmm...

parrotpirate67

#11
Far as I can tell,there's a lot less evidence on THEIR side than ours. Faith=lack of evidence in my book.

Faylen

#12
It's amazing.  The same arguments, each easily disprovable, repeated over and over. . .cut and pasted to anywhere on the internet that even vaguely smacks of atheism.  As if repeating it would make them true.  As if atheists have never seen the arguments, have no ammunition against them, and reading them, will suddenly see the light.  It's spam, it's chain letters, and it would do the world a load of good if the next place it were copied and pasted to were snopes.com.

parrotpirate67

#13
Well,they do call their little groups "flocks",after all. They're all sheep. No creativity or original thought for themselves. I will admit to doing a drive by myself once,though. Iwas with a buddy of mine,we were a little pissed up,and started bouncing in and out of Xian chat rooms yelling "LIONS! LIONS! LIONS!" then bouncing out.