Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[total relism]

Biblical Creation vs Evolution

Threads have been merged so this thread has turned into a general creation vs evolution thread. If you are interested in biblical creation or want to ask any questions or challenge creation feel free to post. For information from the creation perspective see

post 1 and 2- Age of the earth
post 21- common lies evolutionist use in textbooks to indoctrinate us into believing in their faith
post 22- Sources exposing common lies and debates between phd creationist and evolutionist doing the same
post 23- Responds to common "proofs" of evolution such as bacteria resistance, natural selection etc
post 37- Quotes from scientist about evolution you will never see the media report
post 38- why i dont have enough faith to be an evolutionist
post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
post 40- predictions based on creation
post 41 and 43- the fossil record. Lies evolutionist use to claim missing links and how the fossil record supports creation.



Deep time the Creator God of the Evolutionist

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."
—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

“time is in fact the hero of the plot...given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait time itself performs mircels”
-George Wald “the origins of life” physics and chemistry of life


“Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone. In fact, the parallels are truly amazing! For example, Deep Time has the power of creation. According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies. He has made canyons, and mountains. Deep Time separated the continents and oceans. He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution. Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man. These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).But it doesn’t end there. Deep Time is also said to have tremendous power to direct the course of events in the universe. Deep Time creates and destroys species and civilizations at a whim. He gives life and takes it away. He continually shapes the earth as he sees fit – changing deserts to lush gardens, and gardens to deserts. Deep Time existed long before man, and will continue long after man, or so we are told. Again, these are characteristics that are rightly attributed only to God (Acts 17:26, Job 42:2, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13, Job 1:21, Isaiah 51:3, 43:19-20, Genesis 13:10, Deuteronomy 29:23, Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 43:10, Revelation 22:13).But according to his disciples, nothing is too difficult for Deep Time! He is able to do any miracle! Consider this famous quote from Dr. George Wald, “Time is the hero of the plot. … Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” Yes, the gradual evolution of dust into people may seem impossible. But with Deep Time, all things are possible! He is the “hero of the plot!” Compare this with the characteristics associated with the biblical God (Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:17).(2) Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe. They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others. This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped. Such worship takes place in the schools and universities, where Deep Time’s wonderful works are praised all the day long.The worship of Deep Time is found in many a science textbook too. Sandwiched in between the discussions of science will be stories about the amazing feats of Deep Time. A little science here, and an amazing story there. Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! The mixture makes for an entertaining, though deceptive read.Devotees take their religion very seriously. Deep Time must not be questioned. That would be sacrilege! Those who fail to worship at the altar of Deep Time are ridiculed, and face being expelled from the classroom. Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published. Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired.Deep Time is not the Living God. Nor is Deep Time an aspect of God, a creation of God, or an ally of God. Deep Time exists only as a concept, created by the mind of men. He has no literal existence. Although his disciples ascribe to him many of the characteristics of the biblical God, it is clear that Deep Time is fundamentally different than the God of the Bible.”
-Jason Lisle Deep time the God of our age




Radiometric Dating

"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages".
-Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating" Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]


What they are measuring is not ages but rather a ratio of a “parent” element to a “daughter” element, that alone cant give you a age. The parent element in the rock decays at a observable rate under normal conditions into its daughter element. Only when the evolutionist adds his assumptions does he believe he can get a “age” from the rock. These unprovabel assumptions are the downfall of radio metric dating as a claim to prove the earth is older than the biblical account. All the assumptions used have been at one time or another have been shown false. In fact evolutionist will claim that past rates such as the mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were different in the past.

Assumptions

1] That each system is a closed system. Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products being measured.
2] Each system most initially have contained no daughter components, which is unprovable.
3] The process rate must always be the same.
Some other assumptions. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet this could greatly effect the clocks in minerals.

Carbon dating assumptions

1] The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.
2] The very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.
3] Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.
4] Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.
5] The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.
6] Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.

“It [c-14 ]is not an infallible technique, and, as any field archaeologist knows, contamination of the sample is always a serious possibility. Trusting the method to produce an “absolute date” for a single artifact was absurd.” -Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (June, 1983), p. 307.

7] No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.
8] The fraction of carbon 14 which the living thing possessed at death is today known.
9] Nitrogen is the precursor to C=14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.
10 Earth's magnetic field: Earth's magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today

“A stronger magnetic field is significant because the magnetic field partly shields the earth from the influx of cosmic rays, which change nitrogen atoms into radioactive carbon-14 atoms. So a stronger magnetic field in the past would have reduced the influx of cosmic rays. This in turn would have reduced the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere. If this were the case, the biosphere in the past would have had a lower carbon-14 concentration than it does today...So if you mistakenly assume that the radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere and biosphere have always been the same as they are today, you would erroneously estimate much older dates for early human artifacts, such as post-Babel wooden statuettes in Egypt. And that is exactly what conventional archaeology has done.”
-Dr. Andrew A Snelling Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field


For more on the decay of the magnetic field see here
https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v7/n4/ECP-p873-877-Earths-Magnetic-Field.pdf

Other Issues

Radiometric dating falls outside of the realm of science since science must be observable. The rocks and their decay from parent to daughter has not been observed through the samples entire supposed millions or billions of years since its formation. Radiometric dating would not work unless the evolutionist already had an earth history time line in place. When you send the sample in they ask you what layer it was found in and with which fossils. Otherwise they would not know what dates are “good” and what are “bad” since variations occur. Any date that returns in contradiction to the fossils and evolutionary time line, is than declared a “bad” date and disregarded as contaminated or some other excuse.

“No evidence contrary to the accepted framework is allowed to remain. Evolution stands, old earth ideas stand,g no matter what the true evidence revels. An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid evidence according to its fit with evolution...observation plays second fiddle to the assumptions ”
-John Morris The Young Earth

The KBS Tuff is a great example. The KBS Tuff was originally dated 230 million years old. The evolutionist exspalined it away as excessive decay because it did not match with the fossils. Than it was given a new date of 2.6 million years dated by 3 separate methods that all confirmed and was used as a great example of the proof and accuracy of radiometric dating. But than a human fossil was found in the layer and they know redated the layer at 1.8 million years confirmed by radiometric dating yet once more. Another great example is Santo Domingo rock formation in Argentina argon/argon dated at 212 million years. This date agreed with the surrounding ages of rock the fossil wood from a extinct species of tree. However bird tracks were also found but were explained away as some bird type dinosaur and the age for the formation was published in the journal Nature in 2002. Than other evolutionist showed the tracks were from a modern sandpiper [not yet evolved] a small common bird. The rocks were redated to 37 million years old by lead/uranium dating to match the bird tracks. The former dates were explained away as faulting. The fossils decide the age not the radiometric dating. Dates are only accepted if they go along with what evolutionist already claim the age of a layer.

"‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it."
-T. Save-Soderbergh and *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44].

"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"."
-Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]


Most samples are only tested by one method, when multiple methods are applied you often get contradictory results. If one matches the predetermined age, it is accepted and the rest are rejected. Radiometric dating would disprove the evolutionary time line of earth history if it were not for evolutionist preconceived ideas about ages and fossils and their willingness to throw out any “date” that does not conform to their beliefs. Worse still, some published and accepted dates are imaginary. Take the example of German anthropologist Reiner Von Zieten who over his 30 year career “systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age remains.” Some of the fossils he used were fake fossils, others were a few hundred years old that he claimed were as old as Neanderthals. He was unable to use the radiometric dating equipment he claimed he used to date fossils with and was only found out when he tried to sell his universities fossil collection to a U.S Museum. Added that carbon dating and radiometric dating can also be used to show the earth is young.

Some of the results from observable history


“If it doesn't work whenever it can be checked for essentially all recently formed rock date old. How dare we assume this assumption is trustworthy when no checks can be applied”
-John Morris the Young earth

Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. -W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2,300 years ago.
- M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.

Mortar from Oxford Castle in England was dated by radiocarbon as 7,370 years old, yet the castle itself was only built 785 years ago.
-E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.

10 years after the Mount Saint Helen explosion rocks were potassium argon dated at 350,000 years. Different methods gave different results with an average age of 2.8 million.

Mount Ngaruuhoe from 1954 was potassium argon dated at 3.5 million years old. Another sample gave “ages” of .8 million years.

A 1800-1801 Honolulu flow in Hawaii returned ages of 2.6 and 2.96 million years.

1969 lava flows in Africa were rubidium-strontium dated 773 million years old
-k bell and jlpowell 1969 strontium isotopic studies of alkalic rocks the potasium rich lavas of the biruga and toro-ankole regions east and central equatorial africa journal of petrology 10 536-572

Mt Etna was tested 24 years later and dated at .35 million

A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years.
-Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61

Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years
-G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55

Wood was cut out of living, growing trees and tested. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago. - B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)

"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."
-Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

"Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146

Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old.
-Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210

a coal mine in Queensland Australia potassium argon dated at 39-58 million years and carbon dated at 30-45,000 years old.
-See the young earth John Morris

Other dates

"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old -Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]

In a supposed 20 million year old granite received a uranium thorium lead date 97 million years and a zircon dat of 1,483 million years
- r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450

The same sample gave a range of 343 million to 4,493 million
-a.w webb 1985 geochrondogy of the masgrate block minerals resources review south australia 155 23-27

an age of 9.588 billion older than earth was received in an argon sample
-Tim Harrison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149

Okudaira et al. measured isochron ages of a rock called amphibolite sampled from south-east India. With the rubidium-strontium method they obtained an age of 481 million years but with samarium-neodymium the age was almost double at 824 million years -Okudaira, T., Hamamoto, T., Prasad, B.H. and Kumar, R., Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr dating of amphibolite from the Nellore-Khammam schist belt, S.E. India: constraints on the collision of the Eastern Ghats terrane and Dharwar-Bastarcraton, Geological Magazine 138(4):495–498, 2001; http://geolmag.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/4/495

The same rock in the grand canyon gave dates of 6 million, 17 million and 65 million years. Another rock was dated as 1.5 billion years old and 6,000 years old.
-Institute for creation researcher rate group http://www.icr.org/rate/

the Grand Canyon's Brahma schist rock layer, ranging from 1.2 to 1.8 billion years--a 600-million-year difference
http://www.icr.org/article/radioisotope-dating-grand-canyon-rocks-another-dev/

a maximum possible age of 516 million was given to what was a supposed to be 1,100 million rock layer of the grand canyon. Rocks suppose to be 100 million were samarium-neodymium dated at 1.7 billion
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past p809-820 2009

a difference of 1.3 billion came from the same rock sampled in Australia
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past p823 2009

A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years This was a joint event of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) Carbon-14 dated dinosaur bones - under 40,000 years old Carbon-14 dating of bones from 8 dinosaurs -
-August 15, 2012 presentation by Dr. Thomas Seiler at the AOGS-AGU (WPGM) 2012 conference in Singapore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ
http://newgeology.us/BG02-A012%20Abstract.pdf

"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200.
-Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

uranium thorium lead dated 1,753 million in a sample suppose to be 21 million
-ir parrish and r tirrul 1989 u-po age of the baltoro granite northwest himalayans and implications for monazite u-pb systematicks geology 17 1076-1079

128 ages were recorded anywhere from 161 million years to 514 million
-cs pickles 1997 determination of high spatial resolution argon isotope variations in metamorfic biotipes geochemica et cosmoshimica acta 61 3809-3833
p807

The Rate Group dated zircons that gave ages of 1 billion and 6,000 by two separate methods.
A basalt in the grand canyon gave ages of k-Ar 10,000 1.17 million 3.67 million 2.63 million and 3.6 million and a rb-sr of 1.143 billion
-see John Morris the Young earth p 52

The scientists who did the Rangitoto tests dated 16 volcanoes in all. Eleven of these were able to be compared with carbon-14 dates. In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years
-Ceram, 1971, p.257-259

A survey of the 15,000 radio carbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:
"[a] Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
" Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as 'infinite.'
"[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
"[d] Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
Six C-14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering land bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500 B.P. [years Before Present].

"The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom to top of the core that no two samples were in the same order. Then the oldest date was discarded because it was inconsistent with other tests elsewhere.
"Then the remaining dates were assumed to be contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago. This is what happens to men who operate without an alternative.
-Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.


Wood from Jurassic rocks in the UK, said to be 190 million years old, gave an age of 24,000 years using carbon dating.
-Tas Walker http://creation.com/geological-conflict

an age of 3,500 million was given in what was supposed to be 426 million old rock
-is williams 1992 some observations on the use of zircon u-pb geochronogy in the study of granite rocks transactions of the royal society of edinburgh 447-458

The youngest rocks in grand canyon was dated 1,153 by rubiduim strontium, that is the same age as the oldest rocks in grand canyon 1,111 and 1,060 for the oldest rocks
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past 843 2009

A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
-New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466]

Thirty eight laboratories worldwide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. -Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10]

The data from one of the San Juan Basin dinosaur limb bones showed a range of "ages" from roughly 15 to 85 million years. Some of the calculated "ages," though, lined up with the already assumed age of 64 million years, and these data were hand-picked to represent the "age" of the fossil. Thus, the technique was called "the first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone"—a classic case of circular reasoning. -Fassett, J. E., L. M. Heaman and A. Simonetti. 2011.
Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology. 39 (2): 159-162.

fossil wood carbon dated at 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old, the limestone it was in dated at 183 million
-Snelling A geological conflict young radiocarbon age for ancient fossil wood creation 22 [2] 44-47 2000

isochron ages of 481 million and 824 million years same rock
-bkudaira et al sm-nd and rb-sr dating of amphibelite from the nellore-khammam schist belt.se india constraints on the collision of the eastern gnats terrane and dharwar-bastar craton
geological magazine 138 [4] 495-498 2001

"an age of 24,600 BP for a supposed Cretaceous mosasaur humerus bone 70 million years old
-Lindgren, J. et al. 2011. Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins. PLoS ONE. 6 (4): e19445. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0019445

martian rock ALH84001 originally dated at 4.5 billion years old, than re-dated at 400 million by other radiometric dates to fit the new theory.
-Kerr R.A 1996 ancient life on mars? Science 273 864-866 Lapen T J et al 2010 a younger age for ALH8001 and its geochemical link to shergottie sources in mars. Science 328;347-351


[B]Radiometric dating in support of a young earth

That c-14 is still found fossils,diamond and various samples that are claimed to be millions and even billions of years old, indicates itself a young earth.


“Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!”
-Dr Andrew Snelling Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds

Pieces of fossilized wood in Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian rock layers supposedly 32–250 million years old all contain measurable radiocarbon, equivalent to “ages” of 20,700 to 44,700 years Similarly, carefully sampled pieces of coal from ten U.S. coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian and supposedly 40–320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels equivalent to “ages” of 48,000 to 50,000 years. Even fossilized ammonite shells found alongside fossilized wood in a Cretaceous layer, supposedly 112–120 million years old, contained measurable radiocarbon equivalent to “ages” of 36,400 to 48,710 years. Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years.
-A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California,” Answers Research Journal 1 (2008): 123–144. R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287 J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 127–147. J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630 B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.
10 coal samples from evolutionary dating at 40 million to 350 million years all radiocarbon dated around 50,000
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Earths-Catastrophic-Past,6438,226.aspx


Excessive decay in the past?

“Recent experimental evidences verify that the decay rates of radioisotopes can very significant from the current accepted values- by as much as 1 billion times faster when exposed to certain environmental factors.”
-Dr Cupps PHD Nuclear Physics Clocks and Rocks

Creationist explanation for the old ages is simply that the decay rates have not been constant throughout all of history. That there was a event or multiple events that accelerated the decay rates in the “clocks” of the rocks. In lavatory experiments we have been able to produce billions of years of decay in hours. Decay rates can be changed by a factor of trillions. Polonium halos prove millions of years of radioactive decay in micro seconds hours and days in earth history. One rock dated by the rate group shows that one rock decayed 1.5 billion “years” worth of decay in 6,000 years . argon age of 5 billion years can be obtained in 3 to 10.5 hours. Diamonds have been argon dated 6 billion years older than earth
-s zushu m ozima o nith 1986 k-ar isochron dating of zaire cubic dimonds nature 326 710-712


radiohalos show at least 100 million years of decay in days at most weeks minutes in some cases
heat can produce accelerated decay radioactive decay
p847
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Earths-Catastrophic-Past,6438,226.aspx

many mechanism can cause radioactive decay, decay rates can be changed by a factor of trillions p 848
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Earths-Catastrophic-Past,6438,226.aspx

polonium halos from 3 different layers 35 million to 245 million years old had to form within months of each other
-R.L gentry wh cristie dh smith jf emery sa renalds r walker ss christy radiohalos in colified wood new evidence relating to the time of unranium introduction and colaification science 194 315-318


Fossils and Geological Column Millions of Years old?

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."
—*J.E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

“And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we than turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossils record”
-Niles Eldridge the rethinking of Darwinian evolution

“The fossils date the rock, and evolution dates the fossils.... circular reasoning, instead of proceeding from observation to conclusion, the conclusion interprets the observation which “proves” the conclusion...thus the rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks. The unquestioned assumption of evolution provides the context for the entire process”
-John Morris The Young Earth Master Books 2007

Rocks are not dated buy their appearance, as all types are found in all layers. They are not dated by minerals, as minerals of all type can be found through the whole column. They are not dated by location, as rock formation of older ages are found on younger “ages” all the time and more often strata “ages” are missing totally. Only 4% of earth has a total of 10 layers. They are not dated buy dating method. They are dated by the index fossils but these fossils alone cant give you a date, only the preconceived assumptions of evolution can. It is all done with circular reasoning. The rocks date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks. Without index fossils there could be no geological column.

“But wait a minute! We cannot even use 99 percent of the fossils to date them by, since we can find the same type of fossils in one stratum as in many others! And in each stratum are millions of fossils, representing hundreds and even thousands of different species of plant and/or animal life. The result is a bewildering maze of mixed-up or missing strata, each with fossil prints from a wide variety of ancient plants and animals that we can find in still other rock strata.What are these magical fossils that have the power to tell men finding them the DATE—so many millions of years ago—when they lived? These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals
-Vance Terrell Science vs Evolution

“Any rock containing fossils of one type of trilobite (Paradoxides) is called a "Cambrian" rock, thus supposedly dating all the creatures in that rock to a time period 600 million years in the past. But rocks containing another type of trilobite (Bathyurus) are arbitrarily classified as "Ordovician," which is claimed to have spanned 45 million years and begun 480 million years ago The dating of each stratum—and all the fossils in it—is supposedly based on index fossils, when it is actually based on evolutionary speculations, and nothing more. "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."
—-Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 31.

We find living index fossil these are suppose to date certain layers of rock millions of years old, yet there alive today.

“A circular argument arises interpret the fossils record in terms of a particular theory of evolution. Inspect the interpretation and note that it confirms the theory, well, it would, wouldn't it”
-Tom Kemp new scientist a fresh look at the fossil record

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."
—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.


Is there a geological column?

The geological column is found only one place, in government textbooks. Most all fossil bearing sea creatures are on the continents not in the ocean, fossils today are not forming on continents so the present cannot be the key to the past. Today we do not form vast sedimentary layers spread across continents, marine creatures in vast graveyards. So the present is not key to the past.

“it seems axiomatic that the harder you look at a rock the more incomplete its stenography appears to become”
-torres h.s some personal thought on stratigraphic precision in the 20th century the earth inside and out,some major contributions to geology in the 20th century geological survey London no 192 p251-272 2002

“85% of earths surface does not even have three layers in the right order we are always finding older layers on top of younger layers and all mixed up”
-Holt biology p285 1989

“if the whole column were together it would be 100 miles think”
-Holt biology

“if the layers are different ages why is there no erosion marks between layers”
-Merrill earth science 1993 p114 no evidence of aging

“if there was a column, unfortunately no such column exist”
-hbj earth science 1989 p326

a worldwide study on all strata was done by John Woodrappe's world research project it was published in creation research society quarterly. He found fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata ,instead they tend to be mixed together in successive strata . 1/3 span 3 or more levels. there is not an orderly progression of strata from bottom to top higher strata . Instead they are found here and there in what approximates a chance arrangement such fossils are often clumped at a great horizontal distance from the index fossils they are suppose to overlay. only small % of all localities of any given fossil override or are overlain by any other sigal fossil of another geological period. Thus fossils of different gemological periods invariably tend to shun each other geographically and this in itself may be taken as prima facie evidence that all fossils are ecological and/or biogeographic equivalents of each other- negating all concepts of evolution geologic periods and geologic time.

[total relism]

Evidence for a Young Earth


“When one considers that the most reasonable explanation for the fossils in various rock strata is a sudden catastrophic burial—[along with] the absence of transitional [fossil] forms in the rock strata, the presence of collagen in dinosaur bones supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, and the presence of measurable 14C in that collagen—it becomes very difficult to hold an old-earth view “
-Dr. Cupps earned his Ph.D. in nuclear physics at Indiana University-Bloomington is Research Associate at ICR.


There are about a hundred dating method that show the earth cannot be as old as the evolutionist need it to be. The data are well known in the scientific literature but do not make it to the school classrooms or on CNN. Here are some examples.


Erosion Rates of Continents


“if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
-C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668

The continents would have eroded away over 250 times if they were as old as the evolutionist say. Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

-J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264


Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”


-S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155


Even using the slowest possible rates of erosion the continents would have eroded in 623 million years. The resulting measured rates [lower than normal ] would give only 9.6 million years until all above sea level continents would be totally eroded. As one evolutionist said

“In geological terms, in other words, there ought to be no land forms or land surfaces of an age greater than 30MYA and certainly no older than the Cenozoic...yet many features that are several tens of millions, or even a few hundreds of millions of years old, remain....since these land forms exists, they must be possible.””
-Twindale CR and Campbell EM Australian Land forms Understandings a low, flat, arid arid or a landscape Rosenberg publishing new south wales Australia 2005


So they must reject observable testable science [erosion rates] to hold on to their belief in millions of years.


Levels of Salt in the Oceans


Giving best possible assumptions and generous calculations to the evolutionist the salt would have accumulated in the oceans in a maximum possible age of 62 million years. Many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans. This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old. Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans. Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.

-M ,Meybeck, 1979 concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports aux oceans, revuede geologie dynamique et de geographie Physique 21 [3] 215-246 F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779


The rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year.


-F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779
S.A Austin and D R Humphreys 1990 the seas missing salt proceedings of the second international conference on creationism vol 2 R E Walsh and C L books,eds Pittsburgh Pa creation science fellowship 17-33


Assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be. Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%.

-W S Moore 1996 Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters reveled by 226 Ra enrichments Nature, 380 [6575] 612-614 T M church 1996 An underground route for the water cycle Nature 380 [6575] 579-580


Additional calculations for for many seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/



Galaxies Wind Themselves up too Fast

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.


Ocean Floor Sediments

sediments are being eroded from the continents by a average of 24 billion tons as a low estimate. It is estimated that the ocean floor has a average depth of less than 400 meters.

-WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 14,933-940

There is only one know way to remove sediments from the ocean floor by subduction, it is estimated that about 1 billion tons per year of sediments are subducted.

-WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940

The other 23 tons accumulate at the ocean bottom, at that rate the sediments would have accumulated in just about 12 million years. According to evolution these processes have been occurring for 3 billion years.


[B]Decay of Earths Magnetic Field

10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The strength of the magnetic field has been reliably and continually measured since 1835. From these measurements, we can see that the field's strength has declined by about seven percent since then, giving a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that in 1,400 years it will be one-half as strong, in 2,800 years it will be one-fourth as strong, and so on. There will be a time not many thousands of years distant when the field will be too small to perform as a viable shield for earth. Calculating back into the past, the present measurements indicate that 1,400 years ago the field was twice as strong. It continues doubling each 1,400 years back, until about 10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The inescapable conclusion we can draw is that the earth must be fewer than 10,000 years old. Compare this "clock" with others used to estimate earth's age. This method utilizes a long period of measurement, amounting to over one-tenth of a half-life, whereas radioisotope decay has been accurately measured for only about 100 years, while its half-lives are typically measured in the billions. The short half-life should be favored by uniformitarians for it minimizes the chances that something dramatic has happened to change things, since longer spans are more susceptible to out-of-the-ordinary events. Magnetic field decay also involves a whole earth measurement, and on this large scale it cannot be easily altered or "contaminated," as could any rock selected for radioisotope dating. The young-earth implications are even stronger when the energy of the field is considered rather than its strength, for the energy's half-life decays each 700 years.

http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field/
http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young



Earth-Moon System

the tides when the moon would have close enough would have drowned all life on earth twice a day and shattered the moon. How long has the moon been receding? Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.7 The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.8 NB: this is the maximum possible age — far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks) — not the actual age.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0811.asp


Comets Disintegrate too Quickly

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]

-Steidl, P.F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73–106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092


Human Population Growth

It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.That’s not very much. Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. Say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square meter per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square meters. If every one of those square meters were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people


Geneticists recently analyzed human gene differences
-Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.

The research team investigated the amount of diversity among today’s human genes and how long it took to reach the current amount of diversity. They concluded that human genes diversified recently. The authors wrote, “The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago.”
Recent studies indicate that mutationns, most of which are nearly harmless, accumulate at a rate of at least 60 per human generation.
- Conrad, D. et al. 2011. Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families. Nature Genetics. 43 (7): 712-714. Genesis 9:19.

The rapid explosion of human genetic diversity over the last 5,100 or so years easily fits the biblical model
if the evolutionary timeline is true, then human population growth and genetic diversity were miraculously unchanged for a few million years before suddenly exploding in just the last few thousand years. What are the odds that every married couple would have had almost exactly two offspring—just enough to replace the parents—survive into the next generation for over two million years or 100,000 straight generations?


Dinosaur Blood Vessels

“Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.”
"Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
-Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.


Hemoglobin and proteins decay rates from observable science proves they cannot be millions of years old. Some cannot last 2.7 million years frozen.

There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long
-Schweitzer, M.H. et al., Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:6291–6296, June 1997. Return to text.
http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report
Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009

collagen found dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.

-Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf

It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.

-Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation 30(3):12–15, 2008.


also dna and material that should have decayed away has been found in these supposed ancient ice cores

-Willerslev, E. et al. 2007. Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland. Science. 317 (5834): 111-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/bacteria-resurrected-from-greenland
Loveland-Curtze, J., V. I. Miteva and J. E. Brenchley. 2009. Herminiimonas glaciei sp. nov., a novel ultramicrobacterium from 3042 m deep Greenland glacial ice. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 59: 1272-1277.



half life of collagen at 7.5 Celsius last 130 thousand years. Optimal preservation conditions.

-Nielsen marsh c bimolecules in fossil remains multidisciplinary approach to endurance the biochemist pp 12-14 june 2002
also responds to claims of contamination.
Joc 27 [1] 2013


“when you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded comepletley”
-Schweitzer m nova scince nov may 2009 cross/tv/21726




Polystrate fossils

20917

Often trees are petrified connecting multiple layers of rock strata supposed separated by hundreds of millions of years proving 100% positive they were deposited around the same time not over millions of years.




Bent Rock Strata

20918


all these layers at certain spots are bent showing they all formed while wet around the same time otherwise they would have harden and broke.


“In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition”
-Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3–15. Address in ref. 12




Flat Gaps

20919




“Paraconformities, or flat gaps, pose a serious problem for the concept of long geologic ages. On the surface of our restless earth, during the period of the gap with the proposed millions of years of weathering, tectonic activity, and drifting of continents, you have either deposition or erosion of the sedimentary layers. If there is deposition there is no gap because the layers just keep building up. If there is erosion the contact surface (underlayer) should be highly irregular, and not flat. The flatness of the gaps indicates little time has occurred at the gaps.The flat gaps, with their incredibly widespread sedimentary layers just above and below, severely challenge the many millions of years proposed for the standard geologic time scale. The complete absence of the deep erosion expected at these gaps over their alleged long ages is very difficult to explain within the long-age uniformitarian paradigm.”
-‘Flat gaps’ in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages Ariel A. Roth


Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples

If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old.

“Even if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1998 alone, the scientific literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record, supposedly spanning more than 500 million years. All contained radiocarbon “
-Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney

Paul Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.

It has even been found in diamonds.

-R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287
J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research InitiativeHYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/carbon-14#fnMark_1_14_1", eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630. D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.

[Pannonian]

Erosion Rates of Continents


“if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668

The continents would have eroded away over 250 times if they were as old as the evolutionist say. Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264


Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”


S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155


Even using the slowest possible rates of erosion the continents would have eroded in 623 million years. The resulting measured rates [lower than normal ] would give only 9.6 million years until all above sea level continents would be totally eroded. As one evolutionist said

“In geological terms, in other words, there ought to be no land forms or land surfaces of an age greater than 30MYA and certainly no older than the Cenozoic...yet many features that are several tens of millions, or even a few hundreds of millions of years old, remain....since these land forms exists, they must be possible.””
-Twindale CR and Campbell EM Australian Land forms Understandings a low, flat, arid arid or a landscape Rosenberg publishing new south wales Australia 2005


So they must reject observable testable science [erosion rates] to hold on to their belief in millions of years.


Have you heard of the Atlantic Ocean? Have you heard of Iceland? Did you know the Himalayas are getting taller every year?

[total relism]

Have you heard of the Atlantic Ocean? Have you heard of Iceland? Did you know the Himalayas are getting taller every year?

right the mountains are still their, as is above land surface. Awkward for the evolutionist yes. Maybe Lyell's assumption of the observable past of uniformitarnism was wrong after all?

[Pannonian]

right the mountains are still their, as is above land surface. Awkward for the evolutionist yes. Maybe Lyell's assumption of the observable past of uniformitarnism was wrong after all?

Do you know what's going on under the Atlantic?

[total relism]

Do you know what's going on under the Atlantic?

The himlayas are eroding.

http://recherche.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr/spip.php?article1150&lang=fr

But no one is saying that new rock is not being pushed up in some places. If the world were millions and billions of years old their would be some at least small recent islands. But to claim large land masses [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have been around for hundreds of millions of even billions of years, defies observable science and is based on faith, and i would say indoctrination.

[Pannonian]

The himlayas are eroding.

http://recherche.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr/spip.php?article1150&lang=fr

But no one is saying that new rock is not being pushed up in some places. If the world were millions and billions of years old their would be some at least small recent islands. But to claim large land masses [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have been around for hundreds of millions of even billions of years, defies observable science and is based on faith, and i would say indoctrination.

Of course the Himalayas are bloody eroding. But India is still pushing north nonetheless, at a rate exceeding the effects of erosion. Meanwhile, the Atlantic is getting bigger, and consequently the Pacific is getting smaller, and new rock is getting vomited out. Or rather, more of a constant dribble from what I've seen.

[total relism]

Of course the Himalayas are bloody eroding. But India is still pushing north nonetheless, at a rate exceeding the effects of erosion. Meanwhile, the Atlantic is getting bigger, and consequently the Pacific is getting smaller, and new rock is getting vomited out. Or rather, more of a constant dribble from what I've seen.

Are you british? sorry to see england go out to my team croatia. Damn the french.



I have a drip from my sink into a can that is half full. Yet a whole in the bottom releases far more than the drip can add, will this can become full or empty over millions of years? near empty right? erosion rates far exceed any uplift. Further as i stated even if this were not so, the claim that above water land surfaces [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have remained for the length that evolutionist claim without eroding and being replaced by newer, younger, uplifted rock, cannot be so. Their in lies the issue. Further add the flat gaps from my op that shows the erosion did not happen, and its should at least cause one to think of the assumptions of uniformtarnism.


Could you link to me the claim that India is gaining material faster than losing it.

[Pannonian]

Are you british? sorry to see england go out to my team croatia. Damn the french.



I have a drip from my sink into a can that is half full. Yet a whole in the bottom releases far more than the drip can add, will this can become full or empty over millions of years? near empty right? erosion rates far exceed any uplift. Further as i stated even if this were not so, the claim that above water land surfaces [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have remained for the length that evolutionist claim without eroding and being replaced by newer, younger, uplifted rock, cannot be so. Their in lies the issue. Further add the flat gaps from my op that shows the erosion did not happen, and its should at least cause one to think of the assumptions of uniformtarnism.


Could you link to me the claim that India is gaining material faster than losing it.

Look for stats on how the Himalayas are gaining height. The Himalayas contain fossils from the sea floor. Also see the Yunnanese folds on the eastern end of the Himalayas, and how mini-ecologies evolved in each valley.

[total relism]

Look for stats on how the Himalayas are gaining height. The Himalayas contain fossils from the sea floor. Also see the Yunnanese folds on the eastern end of the Himalayas, and how mini-ecologies evolved in each valley.

You made the claim I would prefer you support it. I would like to see what you based your claim on. I never made the claim so I see no reason to support your find.Yes the himalayas have deep sea creatures on them [as does every major mountain range] this does indeed support the creation position.

[Pannonian]

You made the claim I would prefer you support it. I would like to see what you based your claim on. I never made the claim so I see no reason to support your find.Yes the himalayas have deep sea creatures on them [as does every major mountain range] this does indeed support the creation position.

Bloody hell. You've made the claim that erosion would wear down all land, an argument that has been amply disproven by anyone with but a basic knowledge of plate tectonics. Tectonics that have been proven with magnetic data, and more recently with camera footage of rock being cycled above ground along the Atlantic rift, the north end of which is above ground in Iceland. The most dramatic above ground example of the effects of plate tectonics is the Himalayan range, which is the Indian continent pushing against the Asian continent. Oh, and if you want to throw Uniformitarian arguments around like it's the ultimate proof of God's creation, blow your mind away with some Catastrophism and read up on KT.


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1.1

Then a big rock smashed into the earth and killed nearly everything.

[total relism]

Bloody hell. You've made the claim that erosion would wear down all land, an argument that has been amply disproven by anyone with but a basic knowledge of plate tectonics. Tectonics that have been proven with magnetic data, and more recently with camera footage of rock being cycled above ground along the Atlantic rift, the north end of which is above ground in Iceland. The most dramatic above ground example of the effects of plate tectonics is the Himalayan range, which is the Indian continent pushing against the Asian continent. Oh, and if you want to throw Uniformitarian arguments around like it's the ultimate proof of God's creation, blow your mind away with some Catastrophism and read up on KT.



Then a big rock smashed into the earth and killed nearly everything.

One thing is for sure, we are dominating this thread ~:). I think you maintain a misconception of what my op argues with the erosion of continents and this has led to your responses. I did not say no land today [assuming evolutionist age of the earth] would be above water, i admitted some small newer land islands would be [assuming constant tectonic rates] above water. Only that the claimed ancient land masses and ages assigned to them by evolutionist would have been long ago eroded into the ocean.


You had claimed that India is gaining material more than losing through erosion. I asked that you support this [with a reference] and show it true. Instead all you have done is say it is [as i thought might be the case] being pushed "north" into asia as well as state the fact that new rock is added and plates currently move a slight bit. You than conclude these are arguments against the current rates of erosion and the argument in my op. The issue i see as i already said is that the erosion rates far exceed the new material being added. I tried to do an analogy for you. If a bath tub is filled with water at a gallon per hour, yet has a hole in the tub that drains 2 gallons an hour, the water level will drop. Overtime you will not find more than 1 gallon at a time and in fact very little in the tub. Same with the erosion, if some is added at a lesser rate it still [as my op showed] cannot replace what is lost. Even if it could replace at those rates, the claim that ancient above water land surfaces [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have remained for the length that evolutionist claim without eroding and being replaced by newer, younger, uplifted rock, cannot be so. Their in lies the issue. Further add the flat gaps from my op that shows the erosion did not happen, and its should at least cause one to think of the assumptions of uniformtarnism.


As for Catastrophism and the K/T boundary, yes, evolutionist have been forced to fit in some Catastrophism into their understanding of earths past. Largely because of the work of creationist started with the genesis flood.

https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Flood-50th-Anniversary/dp/159638395X

But i think a future thread may better fit a discussion on the K/T boundary as well as the claim "Then a big rock smashed into the earth and killed nearly everything." But more important, are you British? all the "bloody" language make me think so. Did you watch the world cup?

[Gilrandir]

So, all this thread is meant to say that the universe is 7000 years old?

[total relism]

So, all this thread is meant to say that the universe is 7000 years old?

I think it is more saying that uniformitarnism is a false assumption. Nothing could "prove" in the scientific sense the age of the earth if it is thousands or billions going into the observable past leaves the realm of repeatable science. Any attempt to do so takes the summations of uniformtarnism witch contradict themselves if it points to an old earth or young. So maybe it is that we cannot know the age of the earth by any modern in our time scientific methods.

[Pannonian]

I think it is more saying that uniformitarnism is a false assumption. Nothing could "prove" in the scientific sense the age of the earth if it is thousands or billions going into the observable past leaves the realm of repeatable science. Any attempt to do so takes the summations of uniformtarnism witch contradict themselves if it points to an old earth or young. So maybe it is that we cannot know the age of the earth by any modern in our time scientific methods.

There's a hell of a lot more evidence for that model than that of the Young Earthers, whose evidence amounts to zero.

[Husar]

One thing is for sure, we are dominating this thread ~:). I think you maintain a misconception of what my op argues with the erosion of continents and this has led to your responses. I did not say no land today [assuming evolutionist age of the earth] would be above water, i admitted some small newer land islands would be [assuming constant tectonic rates] above water. Only that the claimed ancient land masses and ages assigned to them by evolutionist would have been long ago eroded into the ocean.

So you're assuming constant tectonic movement and constant decay of land mass, yet above you question the decay of atoms because of "all the factors that could influence it"? I would think there are way more things that could affect the rate of continental decay and tectonic movement than the rate at which atoms fall apart over thousands of years.

If you make a lot of these small assumptions, the total sum of your argument is just one big assumption based on your personal feelings. And science, while not entirely clear, hints at non-constant tectonics. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/eaog-ssm061014.php

Besides, carbon dating is far from the only thing that hints at the age of our solar system and so on. The moon's surface on our side basically got burnt by hot Earth before there were any "plates" that could have tectonics. What would be your explanation for that?

[Pannonian]

Besides, carbon dating is far from the only thing that hints at the age of our solar system and so on. The moon's surface on our side basically got burnt by hot Earth before there were any "plates" that could have tectonics. What would be your explanation for that?

God did it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have never quite understood how some of those who believe in an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipuissant deity could instantly presume to confine that deity's sense of time to the sidereal 'day' we experience in our own ordinary existence.


"You are the alpha and the omega....but you measure time my way."



Such hubris...

[Pannonian]

I have never quite understood how some of those who believe in an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipuissant deity could instantly presume to confine that deity's sense of time to the sidereal 'day' we experience in our own ordinary existence.

"You are the alpha and the omega....but you measure time my way."

Such hubris...

The deity may be eternal, omnipresent and omnipuissant, but they are not omnioracular. As the deity does not speak directly, it's within the power of those who do to make up whatever nonsense they like and present it as the literal gospel truth.

[total relism]

So you're assuming constant tectonic movement and constant decay of land mass, yet above you question the decay of atoms because of "all the factors that could influence it"? I would think there are way more things that could affect the rate of continental decay and tectonic movement than the rate at which atoms fall apart over thousands of years.


I agree that the assumption of constant rates through history is false weather its erosion rates or radiometric dating, that is the point of my op. Yes factors can change all those rates [as they can any method used to claim billions of years] but as shown in my op even given sort of best possible outcome with slower rates, its still a big problem for old earthers and does not fit their time frame. Unless you suggesting the removal of rain ,wind or any methods of erosion and base that on science. But if that could be done [ never suggested, if anything evolutionist claim a wetter environment in the past] that would help prove my op that uniformitarnism is false.




If you make a lot of these small assumptions, the total sum of your argument is just one big assumption based on your personal feelings. And science, while not entirely clear, hints at non-constant tectonics. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/eaog-ssm061014.php


I apologize if the sum of my arguments in the op were based on my own personal feelings. If that is the case I hope you reject my op entirely. Perhaps you could point out where in my op and what arguments are based on what feelings of mine? otherwise it just seems you are basing your response on feelings without having read my op. I hope the point of my op is to show the claim of an old earth is outside of science. I would like to suggest that perhaps the plates have moved even faster than you suggest.

https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastrophic-Past-Geology-Creation/dp/0890518742


You claim to support science. Of course if you are an atheist how do you justify science from your worldview?


If Evolution Were True Would Science be Possible?

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.




Besides, carbon dating is far from the only thing that hints at the age of our solar system and so on. The moon's surface on our side basically got burnt by hot Earth before there were any "plates" that could have tectonics. What would be your explanation for that?

Just to understand the claim. You are saying the moon was earth as it was a molten liquid rock during its formation correct? If this is the starting claim I would say the earth was never a hot molten mass and the moon did not come out of the earth from some collision as claimed. Maybe you could go into some more detail for me and show just what you think proves an old age of the earth/moon.

[total relism]

“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
-H. L. Menck

“The exact opposite of what is generally believed is often the truth”
-Jean De La Bruyere 1645-1696


When evolutionist have near full control of education [through courts and political activity] and media they are than allowed to get away with lying for their religion to indoctrinate youth into their system of beliefs. When evolution cannot be criticized, and when the teacher has the intellectual advantage over the student, they are than able to deceive students into believing “proofs” of evolution. Further when schools teach obedience to their higher authority [teachers/scientist the modern high priests of liberalism] uncritical thinking, but accepting and repeating what is told them to believe, the textbooks and when teachers have an aura of high priest or Pope like infallibility. Thus they can, and do lie, and get away with it. Student should be allowed both sides of an issue and be allowed the right to not be lied to. But the evolutionist wont allow this to happen.


A few of the Lies my Teacher Told me


“All the icons of evolution misrepresent the truth, the evidence does not justify the sweeping claims that are made in their name....they should be dead to any informed, rational observer, but they keep coming anyways. Textbooks still carry them. But textbooks are not the main problem. The main problem is the scientific establishments determination to promote evolution in spite of the evidence.”
-Jonathan Wells Zombie Science More icons of Evolution 2017

"Just about everything I taught them was wrong."
-Charles Alexander Time Magazine Senior Science Editor former Science teacher

“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205

“I don't believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men.... It's absolute garbage. It's absolutely irrational garbage...The early men are always drawn like apes, right? Because that fits in the theory we have been living with since Darwin...They set up these idols and then they knock them down. It keeps all the old professors happy in the university. It gives them something to do. I don't know if there's any harm in it except they ram it down everybody's throat. Everything they told me as a kid has already been disproved by the same type of "experts" who made them up in the first place.”
-John Lennon book by journalist David Sheff, All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono (St. Martin's Griffin,


Vestigial Structures

"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."
—Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268

Amazingly, evolutionist often claim vestigial structures are proof of evolution. When I was in 7th grade my teacher said “If there is a God, why did he make useless structures” after showing us the appendix was useless [and it must be true its in a science textbook and my teacher would not lie to me] And she said religion is ok, it just does not belong in the science classroom. At the time of Darwin evolutionist though there were 180 vestigial structures in the human body alone. Each one has know been found to have a function.

But since we are not in a classroom, lets apply skepticism to the claims. No one would be able to prove a structure has no function, only that we are ignorant of its function. Many people have been mutilated and had organs taken out to their own harm, by doctors who believed in evolution and vestigial structures. And just because we may be able to live without a structure, does not prove we don't need it, or its some evolutionary leftover. You can live without both your arms and legs, but they have a purpose. But lets assume there is a true vestigial structure. That is no proof of evolution, evolution needs to exspalin the origin of these structures not their failures. Does it disprove creation? Not biblical creation that contained the fall and the curse such as.

. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”
-R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.


"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions."
—*Encyclopedia Britannica Vo1. 8 (1946 ed.), p. 926.


Appendix

“Darwin was wrong the appendix is a whole lot more than a evolutionary remnant”
-Journal of evolutionary biology aug 2009

“long regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body the appendix is one of the sites where immune responses are initiated”
-Roy Hartenstein Glorier encyclopedia 1998

“An intrigel part of the immune system”
-Gabreille Belz professor and immunologist


We were all told in school the appendix is a evolutionary left over with no function in the human body. Well this is just one of the many lies used to indoctrinate kids in evolution. Here is a great short video on the appendix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDZJy4z4o5k

It is known in scientific journals and has been for over a half century the appendix is not a useless left over organ.

“There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure."
—William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149

The appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs. The appendix generates red blood cells before spleen and bone marrow do. In scientific American march 2012 p22 it reads “ your appendix could save your life” because the appendix operates as a safe house for good bacteria see [ Smith et al comparative anatomy and phylogenic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix journal of evolutionary biology 22 [10] 2009]


“Clostridium difficile is a deadly bacterium frequently encountered in hospitals where patients undergo prolonged treatment with antibiotics. Usually this bacterium does not compete well with the native bacteria of the gut. That’s because many cases of resistance are caused by a ‘scorched-earth’ policy of degrading a receptor the antibiotic needs to latch on to—in this case, enzymes needed to unwind and duplicate DNA. Thus in most cases, ‘super-germs’ are super-wimps (see creation.com/anthrax and creation.com/superbugs).But when patients’ useful native bacteria are depleted, as is the case after several courses of antibiotics, the way is paved for C. difficile to multiply quickly and take over. It is in this period after treatment that patients are in the greatest danger of a recurrence of C. difficile.Now researchers led by Dr James Grendell of Winthrop University-Hospital’s division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition have found that patients without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of the deadly pathogen than patients who still had their appendix. (I.e. 48% of cases vs 11% of cases respectively.) In the last few years, researchers have shown that the appendix serves as a ‘safe house’ for beneficial bacteria in our gut. This allows them to be restored in the event of depletion (e.g. after a severe gut infection such as cholera)
—see creation.com/appendix3.-The appendix may protect you against Clostridium difficile recurrence, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 9:1072–1077, 2012

Appendix removal

“appendix removal also increases a persons susceptibility to leukemia, hodkins disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries”
-Walt brown in the beginning p118

Removal of appendix causes increase risk of heart attack [see medicalpress.com 1 june 2011.]

“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.”
-N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

“The appendix is useful and in fact promising”
-live scince.com 24 aug 2009


Human coccyx
20920
Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York


“For example, the coccyx and the two ischium bones of the pelvis together form a tripod that helps to bear the weight of the body and provide balance when a person is seated. As a person leans back, more weight is transferred to the coccyx. The coccyx also serves as an anchor for the attachment of numerous tendons, ligaments, and muscles. Some of these muscles form the hammock-like pelvic floor, which supports various internal organs, especially as we stand upright. Several muscles contribute to bowel and bladder function, including the delaying of defecation and urination—not exactly trivial abilities. The coccyx helps to support the spinal cord as well, serving as an anchor for the filum terminale—a fibrous length of tissue that stretches from the top of the coccyx to the lower part of the spinal cord. Beyond this, the coccyx serves an additional purpose in women—helping to accommodate childbirth. In females, the coccyx is less curved compared to males, so it doesn’t point as far forward, thus making room for a baby’s head to pass through the pelvis. It is more flexible as well, because the movements of the coccyx during labor actually help to enlarge the birth canal.
- Keaton Halley Tailbone “serves no purpose”?New York Museum of Natural History misleads the publicby


Evolutionist notion of bad design in human spines has impeded the development of appropriate treatment of injured backs [see p282 the greatest hoax on earth]


“If you think the “tail bone” is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that—unintentionally, I’m sure!) What happens? You can’t stand up; you can’t sit down; you can’t lie down; you can’t roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I’ll say no more about that)”
-Dr Gary Paker creation Biologist

“That it's uselessness was a concealment of scientific ignorance, not of poor original design.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017




Whale Pelvis Leg Bones


20921


“These pelvic bones perform an important function in copulation.”
-Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

Indeed it take more than a little imagination to believe a whale walked around based on those small bones. There is no observation of it. These little bones are said to be evidence for evolution as vestigial structures and evidence whales once walked on land. Yet the"hind legs" are really anchor points that mussel attach to without they cannot reproduce. These bones are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females. Below are two great videos one from a lies in the textbook series and one from a debate on this topic.

“These “hip bones” are not attached to the backbone of any whale, dolphins, or any of the fossils. Claims beyond the realm of human detection are mystical”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Whales and Evolution Joined at the hip


Great video response in a debate on evolution of whale and hind legs here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprI75NluE0

Lies in textbooks whale hind legs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JudnZJtrj5Q



Embryology- Recapitulation Theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") claiming that an individual organism's biological development, or ontogeny, parallels and summarizes its species' evolutionary development, or phylogeny.

20922
20923


"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation, facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science."
—*Gavin De Beer, A Century of Darwin (1958).

“Far Beyond anything resembling science...an embarrassment to Darwin himself.”
-R Milner The encyclopedia of evolution 1990

“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

In Jena Germany 1860 Ernst Hankel decided he would make some fake drawings of human embryo to make them look more like supposed human ancestors. He said embryos go through ancestral stages of their evolutionary past. He admitted to them being faked 6 years later and his own university charged him with fraud but it is still taught today as proof of evolution. Doctors in Germany new right away they were fake but this faked evidence alone converted almost all of Germany to evolution. Henkel went around the country showing his drawings and other fake missing links to the public. Many animals that dont share an evolutionary lineage are similar yet those that do are very different such as the DNA. Vertebrates eggs very greatly. He left out various stages during the development that refuted his claims. He was exposed in 1868 by University of Basel comparative anatomist professor L Rutitmyer and again in 1874 by the leading embryologist of his day Wilhelm Hissr of the university of Leipig.

"At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University, said that it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form. L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, called his distorted drawings a sin against scientific truthfulness deeply compromising to the public credit of a scholar."
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112

This is a lie used to support evolution despite being proven wrong over 150 years ago. The only reason it is still in the textbooks is because it supports abortion. Its not a human in there its just a fish or a lizard. According to this story babies have gill slits and a human tail from its evolutionary past. Its not even human at even 7 months, there going through fish stage, than amphibian etc yet over 34% of babies survive after 5 1/2 months. How come if you kill a bald eagle egg you get fined they know thats a bird but they dont know a human is human.

"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry . . What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t . . These are fakes." —*Michael Richardson, quoted in "An Embryonic Liar," The London Times, August 11, 1997, p. 14

“[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.”
“Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Journal Science http://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5331/1435.1.summary


"The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars."
—*Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University

"The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."— Ashley Mantague, debate held April 12, 1980, at Princeton University, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 119

"Thetheory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."
—*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down’s Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“Took along time to expose....so seductive did this picture appear.”
-G De Beer Darwin and Embryology 1958

“In his enthusiasm to prove the law, thereby, vindicate evolution, the biogenetic law major propulizers resorted to outright fraud.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders frauds and forgeries



Human Gill Slits


20924


Still taught in schools today based on his drawings. We never have gill slits they are not gills and they are never used for breathing nor even openings of any kind. They are folds not gill slits, the folds later turn into the to middle ear canal, parathyroids and the thymus gland.

"The pharyngeal arches and clefts [creases] are frequently referred to as bronchial arches and bronchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, but since the human embryo never has gills called ‘bronchia,’ the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book."
—*Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, 3rd ed. (1975).

“The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/03/14/fishy-gill-slits
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-development.asp


Human Tail


“Our “tailbone” is really a functional participant in our physiology, not a relic of history.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

What is claimed to be a tail later becomes a lower part of the spinal column. the spinal column is full of complicated bones and the length of the spine starts out longer in proportion to the body than in adulthood. Another reason the spine is longer is because the muscles and limbs do not develop until they are stimulated by the spinal nerves, so the spine must grow and mature enough that it can send out the proper signals. The human tail has no bones or muscles.



Peppered moth

20925



“And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.”
-D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975 J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999

We have all seen this one shown as a supposed proof of evolution. It is in fact a fraud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GotJEcEdkuI


Classic ‘textbook’ photos of the moths resting on tree trunks were faked, as dead moths were pinned or glued to the tree trunks. The ‘teaching’ film of the moths being eaten by birds was also ‘staged’ and not a true natural situation.

However of what is true is just natural section. The fact is nothing new was created or "evolved" to support evolution

1]Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
2]During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
3]Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.

The biologist L. Harrison Matthews was prominent enough to be asked to provide the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. He was at the time clearly also quite happy to see the moths, as an example of selection in action

‘The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.’

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out. He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998


Darwins Finches


20926


The variety of beak sizes observed by Darwin is shown as proof of evolution. However this is simply a sorting of pre-existing genes. Then natural selection could remove information for thin beaks.

“Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.”
-P.R. Grant, ‘Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches’, Scientific American, 265(4):60–65, October 1991

“When the drought brought a shortage of easily available small seeds, is it any wonder that the birds with big beaks survived better because they were the only ones to be able to crack big seeds, and so on? for a while selection drove the finch populations towards larger birds, then when the environment changed, it headed them in the opposite direction.”
- Dr Carl weiland MD


“a 2010 study confirmed that Darwin’s finches developed 14 different sorts of beaks using the same developmental pathways and genetic products. Another case that comes to mind is the empirical research on Galapagos finches done by the Grants. They have done some long term, methodical, empirical work. No doubt about that, but ironically it ends up contradicting macro-evolution... Galapagos finches vary within certain parameters, but remain finches. No evolution...
-Grant, B. Rosemary & Grant, Peter R. (1993)Evolution of Darwin's Finches Caused by a Rare Climatic Event. pp. 111-117Proceedings: Royal Society of Biological Sciences, vol. 251, no. 1331 Feb. 22,,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0962-8452(19930222)251:1331%3C111:EODFCB%3E2.0.CO;2-T


“This is indeed an example of adaptation and natural selection. But note that it actually removes genes from the populations—on seed-rich islands with few grubs, information for long, slender beaks would likely be lost; while the information for thick, strong beaks would be lost on grub-rich (seed-poor) islands . So this change is in the opposite direction from goo-to-you evolution, which requires new genes with new information.It can hardly be over-emphasized: natural selection is not evolution; indeed, natural selection was discovered by creationists before Darwin”
-Dr Jonathan Sarfati received his B.Sc. (hons) in Chemistry and his Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry) from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.



Miller–Urey experiment and the origin of life



20927


"The origin of life remains one of the humankind's last great unanswered questions, as well as one of the most experimentally challenging research areas. . . .Despite recent progress in the field, a single definitive description of the events leading up to the origin of life on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago remains elusive."
-Stanley L. Miller and H. James Cleaves, "Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth" in Isidore Rigoutsos and Gregroy Stephanopoulos, eds., Systems Biology Volume 1: Genomics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 3:


In the experiment notice no Oxygen was used since life cannot arise with Oxygen so they always leave it out of these lab experiments. The bad part though is it cant arise without either because Oxygen makes up the ozone layer and that blocks uvlight radiation etc that would kill anything trying to begin life. This “reducing atmosphere” is pure fantasy and imagination on part of the evolutionist, no were do we find evidence for this early earth in the geological column. no were do we find the chemicals together needed to produce the first cell.
They assumed methane and omnia in the atmosphere methane should be stuck to ancient clays but is not found.Left out oxygen witch has been found in all rock layers.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."
—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."
—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

They took chemicals out after the first strike because if it went through again it would be destroyed. they also did a unrealistic lightning strike.

"[Arrhenius] contends that if actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical] discharges used by [Stanley] Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids], any organics that happened to be present could not have survived."
—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340


this is artificially controlled lab in a made up early earth pure fantasy stuff going on here.


"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment." —*J. -Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.


What they created was 85% tar 13% carboxyic acid both poisonous to life and only 2% amino acids which he quickly took away from the other deadly chemicals because they would destroy them. They only created 2 of the 20 amino acids needed for life. they both bond with the other two deadly chemical's. If it wasent for his controlled lab he would have nothing. Half of the amino acids were left hand half were right hand. for life they need to be all left and the smallest protein needs at least 70-100 that need to be all left handed.


"Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . ."They [today’s scientists] are back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly."
—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88


"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."
—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232


" ‘Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].’
—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist."—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.


‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.


"there is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA>RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code , ribosomes ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP the detailed mechanisms for reading off dna and converting genes into proteins were also in place, in short then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell"
-Lane nick,was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? new scientist 204[2730] 38-42 17 oct 2009

“Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions“The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”
-Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 33


Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse, because there is more time for water’s destructive effects to occur. High temperatures, as many researchers advocate, would accelerate the breakdown. The famous pioneer of evolutionary origin-of-life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are ‘too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment’
Miller, S.L. and Lazcano, A., 1995. The origin of life—did it occur at high temperatures? J. Mol. Evol. 41:689–692.
Miller has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days. Levy, M and Miller, S.L., 1998. The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933–38.


"The origin of life remains one of the great scientific mysteries. The central conundrum is the threshold problem. Only when organic molecules achieve a certain very high level of complexity can they be considered as 'living', in the sense that they encode a huge amount of information in a stable form and not only display the capability of storing the blueprint for replication but also the means to implement that replication. The problem is to understand how this threshold could have been crossed by ordinary physical and chemical processes without the help of some supernatural agency."
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 68:

"It should be stated at the outset that the origin of life remains a deep mystery. There are no lack of theories, of course, but the divergence of opinion among scientists on this topic is probably greater than for any other topic in biology.
"The essential problem in explaining how life arose is that even the simplest living things are stupendously complex. The replicative machinery of life is based on the DNA molecule, which is itself as structurally complicated and intricately arranged as an automobile assembly line. If replication requires such a high threshold of complexity in the first place how can any replicative system have arisen spontaneously?"
-Paul Davies, Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004 [original: Houghton and Mifflin, 1988]), 115:


No, the presence of building materials is one thing, the requirement of the plan to put these building materials in the proper places and get them working together is another thing. That’s why a cell is so beautiful, so intricate. Because of that, even non-Christian scientists marvel at that. Even to get one single functional protein molecule to form by chance is a mathematical absurdity. Sir Fred Hoyle recognized this. He teased his colleagues, told them to put all the raw ingredients in a swimming pool, and see if they get one single molecule needed. Of course no one will take him up, because they know it won’t work.
-Biochemist and head of nuclear medicine at Singapore General Hospital M.B., B.S., Ph.D.(Lond.), FRC Path., MI Biol. (Lond.)


"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
-Horgan, J. Pssst! DonHYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"'HYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"t tell the creationists, but scientists donHYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"'HYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"t have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011.


“both the origin of life and the origin of major groups of animals remain unknown”
-alfred g fisher evolution groller multimedia encyclopedia 1998 fossil section




Ancon Sheep


2092820929


“The Ancon mutation is a loss mutation....this type of mutation does not result in functional information, as Darwinism requires”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries

Given as a textbook exsaple of evolution what was thought to be new information by mutations turned out to be a disease called Achondroplasia. Few of the sheep survived past a few months they could not run or jump and could barley walk and soon went extinct because of the disease.

“It is now recognized that Ancon sheep were not a new breed, but the result of a genetic disease called Achondroplasia....yet it is mentioned in textbooks as evidence for macroevolutinary jumps.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries



Human Chimp DNA 99% similarity

“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16


One of the constant myths and lies used to support evolution is the claim that chimps and man are 99% identical. This was never the case and only evolutionary bias and misrepresentation of the actual data led to this. Evolutionist would inject their beliefs and bias in how they pieced together the chimp genome as the human genome was used as a template to make them more similar then they actually were. There is in fact no human or chimp genome, they are pieced together

“Even with DNA sequence we have no direct access to the process of evolution so objective reconstitution of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination”
-N Takahata a genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans 1995

They would add sections of the human genome to fill in “gaps” that did not exists in the chimp genome. A study done by evolutionist showed only 70% of the genomes aligned and this does not count other differences.

“When we do this alignment [chimp/human genomes] we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genomes 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimp genome. That is 70%.”
-Richard Bugss chimpanzees reformatorisch Dagblad oct 10 2008

24% of the genome have no alignment and so were not used in comparisons. When evolutionist did a chimp comparison without using human model on the y chromosome, they found a 53% differences in gene content alone. David page led the project and published in the journal nature said the two chromosomes are

“Horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages...Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010

“we now know that the old “humans and chimps are 99% identical” canard is passé.”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010


But It does not tell the public as convincing a story when they are told the truth, rather the importance is on them believing in evolution and 99% makes a better case. As one of their main focus research projects creationist at the Institute for Creation Research [http://www.icr.org/] are digging into this claim of chimp/human similarities and creationist can offer a more objective analysis of the data since they do not assume evolution. One of the early papers from the project was

Jeff Tompkins ARJ “Genome wide only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to Human under most optimal sequence slice conditions” https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/v6/comprehensive-analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/

and he concluded

“therefore the total similarity should be below 70%” Plus it is now said that humans can vary by 4.5% yet chimps are claimed to be only 2%.
http://www.icr.org/article/dna-variation-widens-human-chimp-chasm/


Other Similarities with Humans

“the difference in 6 million years of separation of gene content in chimps and humans is more comparable to the difference in gene content of chickens and humans 310 million years ago”
nature 463 [7280]536-539 Hughs etal 2010

Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85%
http://ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human … pgen.shtml

Sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60% [see march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers].

Sea sponges share 70% with humans www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010.

Trichoplax, one of nature's most primitive multicellular organisms, " shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 172419.htm

It is a fact that 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/386516.stm

"in 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 10842.html

Man can be closest related to a rattlesnake
p 15 In the beginning walt brown 2008

Does Similarity prove a Common Ancestor?

A designer would use the same elements if he were the creator over all of creation to show one creator rather than multiple creators. All the books in a library are made up of the same 26 letters, this does not prove they all evolved from Morse code. As a baker would use similar ingredients to make a chocolate cake and a vanilla cake, so God made animals using similar designs patters [showing one god] and animals would be as similar as their functions were similar. The honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts, did they both evolve from a skateboard ? or was the same company making them for similar purposes?

What evolutionist see as evidence of a common ancestor can equally be evidence of a common designer, for example Humans and chimps are as similar as their functions are. If similarity proves common ancestry, than clouds are made up of 100% water, watermelons are 97% water, the missing link is jellyfish 98% water. Evolutionist need to show how lower forms of animals changed into the supposed higher forms of animals, or at the very least, show a working observable mechanism. Similarity shows similarity, not evolution. They simply pick what similarities that seem to fit evolution and make sure they are in the textbooks and the public hears about them. Yet there are so many comparisons that go against evolution and can group animals totally different that somehow do not make it in.

“The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

It was the creationist who prediction that common design would also lead to common genetics, unlike the evolutionist predictions of the time that came true see.

Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionary Predictions Fail the Reality Test
http://www.icr.org/article/major-blunders-evolutionary-predictions/

Homology

Convergent Evolution or Design-Based Adaptation?
http://www.icr.org/article/convergent-evolution-or-design-based/


"The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology . . Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene-complex, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down."—
-Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.

"When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—
*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.


"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find ‘homologous’ genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
—*Sir Gavin De Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem (1971)



what of the same strucrures said to be from a common ancestor that in fact the bones that are said to be ancestral on human and monkeys are from different genes on the chromosomes how can they be ancestral?
Homoligous structures often come from different genes and some genes produce different structures, thus refuting horology as an argument for evolution. The Molecular evidence also often contradicts the fossil record in many cases.
The Greatest Hoax on Earth Jonthan Safarti p 95


grouping animals based on similarities was done before Darwin
p35 joc 25 [2] 2011

homology problems for evolution design vs common ancestor
p43-45 creation mag 34 [4] 2012

Problems with the evolutionary interpretation of limb design
http://creation.com/limb-design-homology

article/pictures on homology
http://creation.com/homology-made-simple


CONVERGENCE

Evolutionists claim that the information is “conserved.” Conserved is the evolution-speak label tagged to the phenomenon of finding nearly identical traits across many wildly different organisms. Such organisms supposedly “emerged” from unrelated pathways and carried unchanged (i.e., “conserved”) information for the similar trait across evolutionary time—while many other traits were greatly changing. Finding information for similar traits is certainly a factual observation. But believing that they are “conserved” is a declaration based in imagination…and firm convictions that evolution happened. In contrast, if the common trait is found in only a few diverse creatures, evolutionists then imagine “convergent evolution” happened. There is a less mystical, more straightforward explanation that is consistent with what engineers do. It may be that different creatures are designed to retain specific developmental architecture for the common purpose of reutilizing regulatory pathways to recover ancestral states when the situation for them is suitable. Stable mechanisms that can be reactivated when useful are more consistent with intelligent forethought since “Darwinian evolution…is near-sighted and agnostic with regard to goal.”
- Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. Major Evolutionary Blunders: Breaking Dollo's Law

—Then there is convergence. "Convergence" occurs when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the woody plants generally have a growing edge (cambium) between the inner part (xylem) of the plant and its outer part (phloem). But this similarity arises because it is the best way for that general type of plant to grow, so the Designer used this basic pattern for nearly all trees—even though most are totally unlike each other in many other ways. It is foolish to suggest that plants have the intelligence to make the decision themselves as to how they shall be structured, for they have no brains. They do it because they were designed that

Hemo Globin red blood cells is found amongst vertebra's and is scattered among a Variety of animals without backbones and is also found in worms, starfish, clams, insects, bacteria and no definite pattern was found. The
Aortic arch is found in 5 animals that have no evolutionary resemblance. if evolution were true, it is clear that all animals in each of those five basic aortic arch types would have to be closely related to one another. Indeed, the evolutionists loudly proclaim that similarities require evolutionary descent.

"If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins."—
*Thomas Hunt Morgan, "The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species," Scientific Monthly 16

Those animals that share the FIRST type of aortic arch are these: horses, goats, donkeys, zebras, cows, sheep, pigs, and deer.Those animals that share the SECOND type of aortic arch are these: whales, moles, shrews, porpoises, and hedgehogs.Those animals that share the THIRD type of aortic arch are these: skunks, bears, kangaroos, rats, raccoons, dogs, opossums, squirrels, beavers, wombats, mice, porcupines, cats, and weasels.Those animals that share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings.Those animals that share the FIFTH type of aortic arch are these: walruses and African elephants.

[total relism]

Resources- you Have Been Lied to Also

Great Sources Exposing the most Common Lies in Textbooks. We have all been through public school and watched national geographic and thus, we have all been lied to by the powers that be. When I first found out I was lied to I became very angry. But I also asked why would they lie? isen't evolution true? isen't their hundreds of scientific ex samples and proofs of evolution, why the need to lie? This will be addressed in the future.


A great way to expose lies they use to indoctrinate kids is to allow criticism and skepticism [not allowed in schools and wont be done by liberal teachers] to be applied to the textbooks and what they teach. Here are a few great sources of creationist doing just that as they are skeptical and question evolution, something you get in trouble for if you were a government teacher.

Lies in textbooks
Video 4 of Kent Hovind seminar lies in the textbooks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8GgrUposII
http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/
https://www.amazon.com/Textbooks-Creation-Science-Evangelism-Seminar/dp/B000JOL1BO

How Textbooks Mislead Dr. Don Batten
https://www.amazon.com/How-Textbooks-Mislead-DVD-Batten/dp/0949906956/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1532207455&sr=1-1&keywords=How+Textbooks+Mislead++Dr+Don+Batten
http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/textbooks-mislead-p-1105.html

What the schools are teaching Dr Charles Jackson
https://www.amazon.com/What-Schools-Teaching-Charles-Jackson/dp/1921643293/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532207408&sr=8-1&keywords=What+the+schools+are+teaching+Dr+Charles+Jackson

Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries Paperback – December 1, 2017
by Jerry Bergman
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Blunders-Frauds-Forgeries-Bergman/dp/1942773595

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution March 27, 2017 by Jonathan Wells
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936599449/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong Paperback – January, 2002by Jonathan Wells
https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0895262002&pd_rd_r=TYVAFK4GVXZCTD3EXVRB&pd_rd_w=KZ8VJ&pd_rd_wg=eBGUf&psc=1&refRID=TYVAFK4GVXZCTD3EXVRB




Debates


The best way of exposing lies of the evolutionist is in debates. When I speak of debates I dont mean CNN or Fox news debates or any media source. A debate should be between two knowledgeable, qualified opponents usually with a PHD and the debate should have a format and should be about 2 hours with back and fourth responses. Evolutionist are very intolerant of other beliefs. They hate, and can't have open discussion or debate. Evolution sounds great when they are the only side herd. However when creationist do get them to debate they often get destroyed. So much so that now they almost never will debate. In the 70s and 80s creation and evolution debates happened in the hundreds. The creationist embarrassed them so that know places like NCSE http://ncse.com/ tell evolutionist not to debate because they will lose.

" Of course, over the years I have found that many evolutionists refuse to
debate creationists. In the Duane Gish era, they used to debate, but I think
because they couldn't win, they then resorted to refusing to debate and
instead they just personally attack creationists and make all sorts of false
claims about creation and evolution".
-Ken ham president of answers in genesis 2012


Debates played a large part in the uprising of the modern creations science movement. When the leading authorities [therefore previous seen as infallible] on evolution were exposed, the public and scientist in large numbers converted. Debates played a very large part in my conversion.

"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them."
-Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma"

Debates are very good for Christians because they can see there view hold up and they can have evolutionist present their best evidences and have them refuted. The Institute for Creation Research [http://www.icr.org/] has spearheaded the creation debates of the past and today. Famous debater Duane Gish was in over 300 debates around the world and is commonly [even among evolutionist when questioned] seen as having won them all. ICR President John Morris tells of the effects of debates today on christians

“In the vast majority of cases, in fact in nearly 100 percent of them, those who claimed they switched their view that evening, switched from evolution to creation; and nearly all, no matter what their view, felt that the creationists had the better case. Many university professors have become creationists during these debates—not the debaters themselves, but of those in attendance. In fact, several are now affiliated with ICR. One even testifies that his acceptance of Christ as Savior came as an indirect result of a debate. My two recent debates in Moscow, before almost exclusively atheistic audiences, resulted indirectly in numerous conversions and the rapid growth of the local creation society. Furthermore, many, many students—those who have not yet become thoroughly brainwashed...Perhaps the most common result is the strengthening of the faith of Christian students, as they see their faith validated. Furthermore, as they witness advocates of evolution many times openly ridiculing Jesus Christ and the Bible, spewing out vicious hatred for all they love and believe, they are never the same, and are never again tempted to compromise along these lines.I find it interesting to compare the various reactions to the debates. At one of my recent ones, I felt the evolutionary professor, a well-recognized expert, did the very best job of defending evolution and attacking creation I had ever heard, and although there was much to answer, I felt satisfied with the outcome.I later found out that others had different opinions. Some creationists in the crowd declined the opportunity to ask questions from the floor because they didn't want to embarrass the evolutionist any further. The knowledgeable evolutionists present likewise declined to ask any questions.
A professor of a nearby evangelical seminary, who holds to theistic evolution, stormed out of the debate before it was over, claiming that creationists had done a set-up job, having found an incompetent spokesperson for evolution unable to defend the evolution position. A biology professor from a nearby Christian liberal arts college, also an evolutionist, sat quietly through the entire exchange, but disgustedly remarked to friends afterward that the evolutionist had failed to show any weakness in creation thinking, and that she could have done better.

Often after debates viewers are left shocked and asking, why have I not been told this before? This such as in my life, leads them to investigate for themselves, seek all views and dare to question those authority and the infallibility given them. Thus they become creationist. Debates can be found at major creation organizations

https://creation.com/
https://www.creationresearch.org/
https://answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/


Here are a few non media controlled debates free online that give equal time to both sides and both sides are represented by qualified persons online.


Kent Hovind debates 20 free online

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6-cVj-ZRivpHQhRLUXmLV3nxZ_kWtND-

The Genesis Debate

"The Genesis Debate: Skeptic vs Creationist" is a debate between Dr. Paul Willis and Dr. Carl Wieland over the topic of Creation (more specifically, "Does scientific evidence support a literal Genesis?"). Dr. Paul Willis was the former winner of Australia's "Skeptic of the Year" award, and Dr. Carl Wieland is Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (Australia).
free online
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nIC9kjHhXg&t=56s

Oregon state university debate

kevin Anderson obtained his Ph.D. from Kansas State University in Microbiology. He held an NIH postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Illinois and was Professor of Microbiology at Mississippi State University, where he taught graduate level courses in molecular genetics. He later served as a research microbiologist for the U. S. Department of Agriculture before accepting his current position as Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center in Chino Valley, Arizona. He is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Vs

Andy Karplus is Professor and Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at OSU, where he has taught since 1998. He holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Washington and was twice an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the University of Freiburg in Germany. He has received several awards for his research and has authored or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed articles on protein structure-function relationships.

Clash Over Origins

Creation vs Evolution Dr Mark Farmer (evolution) and Dr Carl Wieland (creation) https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Over-Origins-Creation-Evolution/dp/0949906638
Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate free online
16 part debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT7nGNguZg8HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT7nGNguZg8&feature=related"&HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT7nGNguZg8&feature=related"feature=related


free online
http://oregonstate.edu/groups/socratic/content/is-evolution-compatible-christian-belief


Skeptics vs Creationist a formal debate Read free online
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/skeptics_vs_creationists.pdf
The Great Dothan Creation/Evolution Debate Dr Robert Carter vs Rick Pierson
https://usstore.creation.com/the-great-dothan-creation-evolution-debate


Two Christians debate the age of the earth
Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Danny Faulkner
https://www.amazon.com/Debate-Over-Age-Earth-Demonstrate/dp/B0052O5RYS


Watch The Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate: Ken Ham And Bill Nye [ a rare time the evolutionist win because Answers in genesis is too worldview directed]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham


“Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[246]HYPERLINK

"http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-245"[247]

In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”[247] Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[247] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.[248] Also, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal creation scientists. In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute states the following:”
“
Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/are_kansas_evolutionists_afraid_of_a_fai000839.html

”
In 1994, the arch-evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates:

"During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.
Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good"debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science"or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.

[total relism]

Responding to Common "Proofs" of Evolution

While any of the debates above will address these and more, here is the responses to claimed proofs from actual science that evolutionist use.


“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205



Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”


20930


But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.

20931

H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm


bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin

"conclusive proof these genes predate medical antibiotics"
-ancient resistance to antibiotics found new scientist 211 [2828] 13 sep 2011


Natural Selection/ Adaptation


“What Darwin really accounted for was not the origin, but the extermination of species.”
-C.S Lewis

2093220933


“Natural selection must not be equated with evolution, though the two are intimately related.”
-Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986 p8

“Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create “
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

The above pictures show examples of natural selection and adaptation. On the right it shows a simplified version of the gene pool of the original dog population that has medium fur. The population already contains the genes for long hair and short hair animals. When the genes are combined right, you end up with a population of all long fur or short fur. When the environmental conditions are right [see left picture] the animals best suited survive and now pass on only the traits conditioned for the environment. Thus dogs in colder climates will tend to survive better with long fur genes and will out reproduce short fur dogs over time.

So we see natural selection, adaptation and a change in the gene frequency of the population. This is all observable science. It has nothing to do with upward complexity evolution. Nothing new is created by these processes, no new genetic information that was not already in the parent population. In fact genetic information is lost. Despite claims by evolutionist natural selection does not have God like abilities to create.

“you could substitute the word “god” for “natural selection” in a lot of evolutionary writings, and you'd think you were listening to a theologian”
-Greg Gaffin lectured life sciences and paleontology ucla scientific American p28 nov 2010

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated...The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if that’s what most biologists say it’s about and textbooks repeat it”.
-Mazur, p. 105)The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

Natural selection selects and cannot create. If you worked in a car factory kept the good cars and through out the bad cars how long would it take to get a plane? It would never happen because the material needed for a plane is not available. Natural selection can select and cause new “species” to evolve but it cannot add information. It can select traits already present in the animal but cant exspalin the origin. Natural selection wasthought of by a creationist over 20 years before Darwin.

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild

“Natural selection is common enough in natural populations to have been detected in a wide variety of organisms, and strong selection is not as rare as has been previously assumed; natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....“But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation....Population geneticists use a different definition of evolution: a change in allele frequencies among generations. This meaning is quite different from the original; it now includes random as well as directional changes, but it does not require the origin of new forms.”
-Dr John Endler PhD Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986

“Natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exists, it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptations needs.”
-E R Noble GA Nobel GA Schad and AJ Macinnes 1989 Parasitology the Biology of animal Properties


Speciation

Speciation happens but it never involves increase of information it is always a reduction. It is creationist that show evidence of rapid speciation [something evolutionist claims take long periods of time] in support of biblical creation. The Bible says god created animals after their own kind, not species. While it varies it is generally around the family category. The wold, coyote, fox and dog shared a common ancestor from the original dog kind. That is why you can get wolf/poodle mixes.
http://creation.com/is-it-theoretically-possible-for-wolves-to-give-birth-to-a-poodle

Many animals within the same kind that are separate species can still reproduce. You can mix a zebra/donkey, Linon and Tiger, False killer whale and dolphin etc
http://creation.com/ligers-and-wholphins-what-next

because the separate species came from the same biblical kind of animal.
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/


sickle cell anemia

“Sickle-cell anaemia is caused by an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. You will only develop the full-blown, serious disease if both of your parents have the defective gene. If you inherit the defect from only one parent, the healthy gene from the other one will largely enable you to escape the effects of this serious condition.However, this means you are capable of transmitting the defective gene to your offspring, and it also happens that such carriers are less likely to develop malaria, which is often fatal. Being a carrier of sickle-cell disease without suffering it (heterozygosity is the technical term) is far more common in those areas of the world which are high-risk malaria areas, especially Africa.This is good evidence that natural selection plays a part in maintaining a higher frequency of this carrier state. If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease. Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.”
-Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, is one of Ghana’s top scientists (now living in the UK), and one of the world’s leading experts in sickle-cell anemia. He has lectured all around the world, published numerous papers, treated several thousand sickle-cell patients, and wrote a major 643-page text, The Sickle Cell Disease Patient.


Richard Lenski bacteria experiments

This is similar to typical bacteria resistance or when a insect that has a mutation so it does not have wings on a island, so it lives because the wind dosent blow it off to sea and kill it. It is from a loss of information. They studied 44,000 generations and were able to increase fitness. Yet this was done by a loss of abilities to degrade sugars by the regulatory controls flagelle genes. They are less fit compared to e coli in real environment.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genetics-Evolution-and-Creation,6426,229.aspx


Human chromosome 2 fusion event


“The supposed fusion site does not bear the scar of an accidental chromosome crash, rather the site sits in the middle of a functional gene.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

The section is specific to humans after we supposedly diverged from chimps. It is not evidence for when or our ancestry before that event. The event is a loss of information fusion loses information its a loss of portionsot centomere and telomemers which are needed for regulating other genes. It is not a simple fusion with many nonalignment,gaps, translocations pieces from other chromosomes. There are 150,000 base pairs in human chromosome not found in chips. All humans have some chromosome 2 that supports human descending from common human ancestor. There is disagreement if it is really a fusion between evolutionist and creationists

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genetics-Evolution-and-Creation,6426,229.aspx
http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-undermines-key-argument/

similar “fusion-sites” are found throw out the human chromosomes with similar features. no exact fusion but very different and the differences are exspalined away by the evolutionist. many things that would not be expected are there and many expected are not see

106–110 The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence
Paper by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins 111–117 The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data
Paper by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins Joc 25 [2] 2011

http://www.icr.org/article/6414/

Combined with the fact that no valid evidence exists for a fossil centromere on human chromosome 2, the evolutionary idea of the chromosome two fusion in humans should be completely abandoned.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusion

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion http://www.icr.org/article/7833/
More DNA evidence against human chromosome fusion
http://www.icr.org/article/more-dna-evidence-against-human-chromosome/


nylon degrading bacteria-

Any information before 2007 will likely be inaccurate. These bacteria that can degrade nylon [new ability/function] are found in waste waters near nylon factories. They can digest the byproducts of nylon.
3 enzymes are involved in degrading E1 E2 E3. E1 and E3 alter the nylon so E2 can break it down. E2 breaks down carboxyesterase and they found a point mutation in E2. A change in active site of enzyme to know be able to digest nylon by a reduction of enzyme specificity. Loss of enzyme specificity was due to a harmful mutation. It is biochemically degenerative to the enzyme and requires the already existing enzyme and its specificity, its degeneration is not a mechanism that can account for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genetics-Evolution-and-Creation,6426,229.aspx

“All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.Regards”
-Jonathan Sarfati He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry


Blind Cave Fish

Losing eyes and sight is a loss of information, the opposite of evolution. However eyes use brain power and energy and that is limited in a dark cave. Why have eyes in the dark? The genes are “turned off” to stop growing eyes. If the fish leaves the cave they “re-enact” these genes and gain eyes back.

Giraffe's Neck

God created an amazing amount of variation within each kind that “natural selection” in a fallen world effects and works on. But the standard story does not seem very logical on how the giraffe got its long neck. Thier was no missing links in the fossil record to support the story. The female giraffe is on avg 3 feet shorter than the male giraffe so if natural selection allowed only the very tallest to survive, how did the females make it? Why also are the other grazing animals found in the same environments that lived along side and with the giraffe yet whose reach was not nearly as high? Also a giraffe could, if it was starving, always bend over to eat grass on the ground like the rest of the grazing animals or of lower branches the other animals were eating off as they do this quit often [for example every time they drink water] giraffes almost always today are observed eating right around shoulder level].

[Husar]

I agree that the assumption of constant rates through history is false weather its erosion rates or radiometric dating, that is the point of my op. Yes factors can change all those rates [as they can any method used to claim billions of years] but as shown in my op even given sort of best possible outcome with slower rates, its still a big problem for old earthers and does not fit their time frame. Unless you suggesting the removal of rain ,wind or any methods of erosion and base that on science. But if that could be done [ never suggested, if anything evolutionist claim a wetter environment in the past] that would help prove my op that uniformitarnism is false.

I apologize if the sum of my arguments in the op were based on my own personal feelings. If that is the case I hope you reject my op entirely. Perhaps you could point out where in my op and what arguments are based on what feelings of mine?

Well, if your arguments are not based on feelings, can you name the factors that affect the rate at which Carbon 14 atoms fall apart?
Also when would they have been strong enough to lead to thousands or millions of years of difference? Your OP contains some examples that lack any sort of detail or explanationa and if you expect me to go hunting for books from the 90s, I'll have to disappoint you indeed. Don't have time for that.


Just to understand the claim. You are saying the moon was earth as it was a molten liquid rock during its formation correct? If this is the starting claim I would say the earth was never a hot molten mass and the moon did not come out of the earth from some collision as claimed. Maybe you could go into some more detail for me and show just what you think proves an old age of the earth/moon.

No, I'm talking about this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/07/01/the_moon_s_two_faces_why_are_they_so_different.html
What would be your explanation?

[Husar]

I don't have time to read all of this, but since you talk about biology, I have a question for you.
If the soul is some kind of ghost-thing that can go to heaven, see things, hear things and remember its life, why or how do brain damage, blindness and other illnesses make it unable to do so here on earth? How exactly is the soul linked to the body? Since all our bodies are different, and different bodies have different effects on the soul, could this affect our ability to see the truth?

[total relism]

Well, if your arguments are not based on feelings, can you name the factors that affect the rate at which Carbon 14 atoms fall apart?
Also when would they have been strong enough to lead to thousands or millions of years of difference? Your OP contains some examples that lack any sort of detail or explanationa and if you expect me to go hunting for books from the 90s, I'll have to disappoint you indeed. Don't have time for that.



No, I'm talking about this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/07/01/the_moon_s_two_faces_why_are_they_so_different.html
What would be your explanation?

I have had a few glasses of wine [Jesus [god] turned water into wine] so we will see how this goes :help:

As i think is clear nothing in my op is based on "feelings" and I think you have shown you have not taken the time to read my op. That is fine it is long. As for carbon dating everything said of radiometric dating applies to carbon dating that also adds a few more assumptions. I would suggest you read that part f my op at least. I know it is long but it has just the examples you look for of how wrong the assumptions are. not just thousands, but millions and billions of times off.



As for the moon this is out of my area for sure, but it is not science but a hypothetical, materialistic, fantasy explanation. notice what it reads


"Both start with the same premise: Not long after the Earth formed more than 4 billion years ago, a Mars-sized planet was on a collision course with it. This object slammed into Earth on a grazing impact, forceful enough to cause immeasurable damage and remelt Earth. A huge amount of material was blasted into space, which coalesced rapidly (and I do mean rapidly; probably in just a few years) to form the Moon. It originally orbited the Earth very close in but over the eons receded from us, and it is now about 380,000 km away. This idea is called—for obvious reasons—the Giant Impact hypothesis.It explains why the Moon has some chemicals similar to Earth—it used to be part of the Earth...The grazing impact skimmed off this lighter stuff, and that’s what formed the Moon"

and later

"During that time, the Earth and Moon would’ve been heavily affected by their tides on each other."

see under Earth-Moon System post 2.


The biblical model does not need to accept these unobserved hypothetical. Again not my area but here are some reasons against the hypothesis.


. “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.”
-Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.


“‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’”
Science 317:1850, 2007

“You have to understand that first there is speculation, then there is wild speculation, and then there is cosmology.” (-Martin Harris, Stephen Hawking; genius or pretender? in Focus on Science, Weekend Australian, July 4–5, 1992.)



“its hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water... thats a really really difficult knot to untie”
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story id=92383117&ft=1&=1001
24 may 2010

more evidence against giant impact theory
http://www.zmescience.com/science/geology/moon-formation-26032012/

Water On the Moon: It's Been There All Along

The results seem to contradict the predominant lunar formation theory -- that the moon was formed from debris generated during a giant impact between Earth and another planetary body, approximately the size of Mars, according to U-M's Youxue Zhang and his colleagues.

"That is somewhat difficult to explain with the current popular Moon-formation model, in which the Moon formed by collecting the hot ejecta as the result of a super-giant impact of a Martian-size body with the proto-Earth."Under that model, the hot ejecta should have been degassed almost completely, eliminating all water," Zhang said.
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Water_On_The_Moon_Its_Been_There_All_Along_999.html

Anything of this size hitting the earth would most likely destroy it. And most importantly there is no evidence of such a collision to begin with because such a hit would affect both the orbits of the moon and earth.

And here is why you know this explanation is ad-hoc. The earth has heavy metals in its crust where the moon does not. What mechanism do the evos have that would separate the heavy metals from such a collision to make sure the earth would only have these metals and the moon would not??? Any type of collision even with a molten earth, especially with a molten earth and there would be this mixing of metals, but alas the moon does not have these. a Mars size object hitting the earth in the first place. The earth's orbit around the sun is an ellipse, but it is very near a circular orbit. Why is this important because to have such a collision you would need to account for all the kinetic energy this collision would cause. In other words, the earth being hit by something this large would change the earth's orbit so the earth would not have a near circular orbit around the sun.

The same problem exists with the moon's orbit. It has almost a circular orbit around the earth. In all the computer simulations I have seen for this. Such a large mars size object would not leave the moon in a near circular orbit around the earth either. And one real caveat, many evo astronomers today say that if the earth was struck by an asteroid something as small as 100 miles wide it would destroy the earth. How could the earth withstand such a collision with a mars size object and survive to begin with??? Regarding moon origin by an earth collision, a recent problem is that the moon contains too many water molecules which would have been vaporized away. The model result where two moons form is discussed at
-Gary, Stuart (August 4, 2011). "HYPERLINK "http://news.discovery.com/space/two-moons-earth-110804.html"Earth May Have Had Two MoonsHYPERLINK "http://news.discovery.com/space/two-moons-earth-110804.html"". DiscoveryNews. http://news.discovery.com/space/two-moons-earth-110804.html. Retrieved 2011-08-04. This is from Wikipedia, Giant Impact Hypothesis.
The scientist found that the isotopic abundance in moon rocks was identical to that of the earth. This implies that the moon came only from earth material, and no from an alien planet that collided into the earth. Thus there is no evidence for a mars size mass object hitting earth in a collision.
Moon formation earths titanium twin http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/full/ngeo1434.html

Problems for origin of moon
moon rocks are surprisingly wet, new scientist 210 [2815 21 4 june 2011
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_deyoung.asp

problems for origin of moon
answers mag july-sep 2012 p 38-39


Also their are Geological explanation for asteroids
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/extinction/do-data-support-large-meteorite-impact-chicxulub/

[total relism]

I don't have time to read all of this, but since you talk about biology, I have a question for you.
If the soul is some kind of ghost-thing that can go to heaven, see things, hear things and remember its life, why or how do brain damage, blindness and other illnesses make it unable to do so here on earth? How exactly is the soul linked to the body? Since all our bodies are different, and different bodies have different effects on the soul, could this affect our ability to see the truth?


This is an amazing question sir, I admit i have drank to much to respond tonight. Tomorrow when I am thinking better i shall respond, great question sir. I will say as i understand it, the body, soul and spirit are linked somewhat like the trinity. This question has nothing to do with evolutionist lying, but its just to damn good to pass on. I shall respond tomorrow when my blood alcohol content is less:2thumbsup:.

[Gilrandir]

The whole thread is based on wrong premises:
1. "Evolutionists caught lying" - Does it mean "ALL evolutionists"? Does it mean "(All) creationists never do"? If you phrase your thread titles like that you might as well have such titles as "Christian priests molest children" or "American film producers harrass women".
2. "Lying" is a category which is gauged against the scale "true vs not true". Whether some things are true can be measured by giving proofs. Since religion isn't about giving proofs, but about having faith, it can be called a lie. E.g. Are there any proofs (documented by independent unbiased witnesses) that Jesus walked water? No? Than this is a lie.

[Gilrandir]

I think it is more saying that uniformitarnism is a false assumption. Nothing could "prove" in the scientific sense the age of the earth if it is thousands or billions going into the observable past leaves the realm of repeatable science.


Oh no. Thousands or millions of years make a great difference. Modern science can be a/some thousand(s) years inaccurate, but not millions of years.



Any attempt to do so takes the summations of uniformtarnism witch contradict themselves if it points to an old earth or young. So maybe it is that we cannot know the age of the earth by any modern in our time scientific methods.

"We" like in "Christians"? Christians shouldn't know anything by scientific methods, they ought to take on faith what religion tells them. And it makes the age of Universe under 10 000 years.



I apologize if the sum of my arguments in the op were based on my own personal feelings.from your worldview?


It is all we need to know about the quality of evidence you provide.




Besides, carbon dating is far from the only thing that hints at the age of our solar system and so on. The moon's surface on our side basically got burnt by hot Earth before there were any "plates" that could have tectonics. What would be your explanation for that?

I may be mistaken, but AFAIK carbon dating is applied only to determine the age of the extinct animals or plants. It isn't used to rocks or planets.

[Fragony]

It's the evolution theory it's just that, unlike religion it doesn't pretends to be be the truth, just very likely. It's a misconception that the evolution theory states that humans descent from apes by the way, they think humans and primates share an ancestor

[Husar]

I have had a few glasses of wine [Jesus [god] turned water into wine] so we will see how this goes :help:

As i think is clear nothing in my op is based on "feelings" and I think you have shown you have not taken the time to read my op. That is fine it is long. As for carbon dating everything said of radiometric dating applies to carbon dating that also adds a few more assumptions. I would suggest you read that part f my op at least. I know it is long but it has just the examples you look for of how wrong the assumptions are. not just thousands, but millions and billions of times off.

That's exactly the part I was referring to when I said "some examples that lack any sort of detail or explanation". There is zero context to these quotes and several of them don't even appear to be quotes but summaries by someone who might have an agenda or misinterpreted them. If you think that were "evidence", it's not. A lot of things can be important here, like who performed these datings? Scientists or kids in a school project? When were they performed? When instruments were still crude or with more advanced ones? How far developed was the science at the time? Given that most of your sources are from the 1990s, those examples could be from the 1970s when the method wasn't nearly as developed as it is today and the errors could long have been corrected.
You keep providing out of context quotes as though they were evidence, but they really aren't. I don't have to prove your evidence wrong if you have none.


As for the moon this is out of my area for sure, but it is not science but a hypothetical, materialistic, fantasy explanation. notice what it reads

"Both start with the same premise: Not long after the Earth formed more than 4 billion years ago, a Mars-sized planet was on a collision course with it. This object slammed into Earth on a grazing impact, forceful enough to cause immeasurable damage and remelt Earth. A huge amount of material was blasted into space, which coalesced rapidly (and I do mean rapidly; probably in just a few years) to form the Moon. It originally orbited the Earth very close in but over the eons receded from us, and it is now about 380,000 km away. This idea is called—for obvious reasons—the Giant Impact hypothesis.It explains why the Moon has some chemicals similar to Earth—it used to be part of the Earth...The grazing impact skimmed off this lighter stuff, and that’s what formed the Moon"

and later

"During that time, the Earth and Moon would’ve been heavily affected by their tides on each other."

see under Earth-Moon System post 2.

The biblical model does not need to accept these unobserved hypothetical. Again not my area but here are some reasons against the hypothesis.

Again, out of context quotes of people I don't even know. From the early 2000s at best it seems. The only thing they appear to prove is that science develops and corrects its own past mistakes. And it still disagrees with you after that. As for the moon, the question was why the moon's two halves are so different and how you explain that? That's not a theory, that's an observed fact. I wanted you to give your explanation, I already knew that you wouldn't accept the given ones.

[total relism]

I don't have time to read all of this, but since you talk about biology, I have a question for you.
If the soul is some kind of ghost-thing that can go to heaven, see things, hear things and remember its life, why or how do brain damage, blindness and other illnesses make it unable to do so here on earth? How exactly is the soul linked to the body? Since all our bodies are different, and different bodies have different effects on the soul, could this affect our ability to see the truth?

I dont say this with authority this is just my initial thoughts to your great question. The body and spirit are linked, when we are in haven we have our resurrected bodies [like jesus after his resurrection] maybe similar to our pre fallen bodies in the garden of eden. Our bodies are different just as is our souls of each person. So if our bodies are harmed than yes it effects the soul, just as if our souls are harmed it effects our bodies.

https://www.amazon.com/None-These-Diseases-Secrets-Century/dp/080075719X


So could brain damage effect our ability to see truth? certainly mentally yes. Spiritually I am unsure. I think the question really is if someone has brain damage, and cannot mentally respond to the bible, wouldn't they go to hell? the answer is no. This is not the topic but post on my thread "what about those who have never heard of Christianity" and we can talk.

[total relism]

The whole thread is based on wrong premises:
1. "Evolutionists caught lying" - Does it mean "ALL evolutionists"? Does it mean "(All) creationists never do"? If you phrase your thread titles like that you might as well have such titles as "Christian priests molest children" or "American film producers harrass women".
2. "Lying" is a category which is gauged against the scale "true vs not true". Whether some things are true can be measured by giving proofs. Since religion isn't about giving proofs, but about having faith, it can be called a lie. E.g. Are there any proofs (documented by independent unbiased witnesses) that Jesus walked water? No? Than this is a lie.

Are they all lying? no not on purpose. Most just believe the lie. I disagree that "religion" is not about proofs but faith. Further this is a creation thread witch is about proofs.

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011

So for example


to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many [B]infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Acts 1.3

"Do not think that we say that these things are only to be received by faith, but also that they are to be asserted by reason. For indeed it is not safe to commit these things to bare faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason. And therefore he who has received these things fortified by reason, can never lose them; whereas he who receives them without proofs, by an assent to a simple statement of them, can neither keep them safely, nor is certain if they are true; because he who easily believes, also easily yields. But he who has sought reason for those things which he has believed and received, as though bound by chains of reason itself, can never be torn away or separated from those things which he hath believed. And therefore, according as any one is more anxious in demanding a reason, by so much will he be the firmer in preserving his faith."
― Clement of Alexandria



Is their proof that Jesus walked on water? their are those who saw Jesus and what he did that say he did. You can reject their testimony as unreliable if you chose. I believe god wrote the bible [for other reasons such as creation] so when it talks of the son of god walking on water i accept its testimony.

If we cannot accept unbias witnesses we cannot listen to you or any evolutionist as they are all bias many to the point of using frauds to indoctrinate us, yet you have no issue with them. Further so much of evolution claims have no proof, they are outside of observable science often contradictory to known science. Would you than agree that 99% of evolution is based on lies? If you could disprove that the son of god could not walk on water, i would be with you. Otherwise we must test the bible in another area, how about creation? further you commit a logical error.

Appeal to motive- a conclusion is dismissed by simply calling into question the motive of the person or group proposing the conclusion. You’ll often see political organizations use this tactic. “The conclusion of Company X’s positive report on the safety of natural gas fracking can’t be true because they funded the research and have an interest in ensuring there is a positive report.” Sure, Company X may have an interest in getting a positive result for natural gas fracking, but just because they have that motive doesn’t mean the conclusion they reached is necessarily false. Suspect, yes, but not false.


“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge

[total relism]

Oh no. Thousands or millions of years make a great difference. Modern science can be a/some thousand(s) years inaccurate, but not millions of years.


I never said science was wrong. Science cannot be wrong. I said evolutions assumptions and beliefs about the past can lead them to be millions of "years" [not really years is the whole point] wrong. For dozens of examples in peer reviewed evolutionist literature, see my op. Shows either you did not read or understand my op.




"We" like in "Christians"? Christians shouldn't know anything by scientific methods, they ought to take on faith what religion tells them. And it makes the age of Universe under 10 000 years.


?Christians should not be scientist? all major branches of science were started by Christians. My good sir a look at the arguments for both sides shows it is the evolutionist who have to accept by faith.


"The doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." —*Arthur N. Field

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." —R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.


"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory—is it then a science or faith?"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by
*Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).


‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "
—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries."
-Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40.


"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."
—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute, 1943, p. 63.



I use to have faith and was an evolutionist, than i learned skepticism and am know a creationist. It is evolutionist who should not be scientist.


Science was Started by Christians from a Bilical Worldview

“In truth the rise of science was inseparable from christian theology, for the latter gave direction and confidence to the former”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History Tempelton Press 2016
"Universities like cathedrals and parliaments, are a product of the middle ages.”
-Charles Haskins

“To identify the age of reason...reason originated in christian theology.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History Tempelton Press 2016


"Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists." -Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology,
University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada

“Science was not the work of western secularist or even diest, it was entirely the work of devout believers in a active,conciuos, creator god”
-Rodney Stark for the glory of god how monotheism led to reformations,science,witch hunts and the end of slavery Princeton university press 2003 p376

“it was in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born.In this newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound science will forever be in debt to biblical literalist “
-Stephen Snobelen professor of history of science u of kings collage halifax canada.

If Evolution Were True Would Science be Possible?

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.


“Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”
Harrison, P., The Bible and the rise of science, Australasian Science
A book on how a christian worldview started modern science. The bible, protestantism and the rise of natural science
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Protestantism-Rise-Natural-Science/dp/0521000963

In the Book gods undertaking has science buried god? He Points out how the de-mything of nature was a biblical doctrine of a creator god existing independent of his creation enabled science to be possible.

http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#creationist
http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god

The fall of man and the foundations of science
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291/ref=sr_1_1?HYPERLINK


“The great scientific achievements of the 16th and 17th century were produced by a group of scholars notable for their piety, who were based in christian universities.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon. See also Exploring the heavens: Interview with NASA scientist Michael Tigges.
Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749–1823—note that Darwin published Origin in 1859)
Antisepsis by Joseph Lister, creationist.(1827–1912)
Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811–1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21.
Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822–1895), who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief.
Antibiotics, developed without the slightest input of evolution, by the serendipitous discovery by Alexander Fleming (1881–1955), who had previously discovered lysozyme, the ‘body’s own antibiotic’. And Ernst Chain (1906–1979), who shared the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine with Fleming (and Howard Florey (1898–1968)) for discovering penicillin, was a devout Orthodox Jew and anti-Darwinian. His biography noted ‘Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution’, and his belief that ‘evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation—and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view’. As an understanding of the development of life, Chain said, ‘a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.’ And speaking of certain evolutionary examples, he exclaimed, ‘I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’
Insulin: its vital function was first discovered by the creationist Nicolae Paulescu (1869–1931), who named it ‘pancreine’. He anticipated the discoveries of Frederick Banting and John Macleod, who were awarded the 1923 Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work on insulin. See Denied the prize.

‘A very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory … I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’
—Ernst Chain, co-winner of 1945 Nobel Prize for discovery of penicillin, on Darwinian evolution
In modern times, we have the outspoken biblical creationist Raymond Damadian (1936–), inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner, and Graeme Clark (1935–), the inventor of the Cochlear bionic ear who is a Christian.

Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler
To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal.







It is all we need to know about the quality of evidence you provide.


I would say the same of your post given neither you or the other poster can provide one example.

[total relism]

It's the evolution theory it's just that, unlike religion it doesn't pretends to be be the truth, just very likely. It's a misconception that the evolution theory states that humans descent from apes by the way, they think humans and primates share an ancestor

I would disagree. They present it as gospel truth [variation can happen, but the assumption evolution is true cannot be questioned] to the point you get fired if you dont go along and play the game nicely.



“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017


"if freedom of speech is taken away than dumb and silent may be led, like sheep to the slaughter"
-George Washington





Slaughter of the Dissidents
https://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496579022&sr=1-1&keywords=Slaughter+of+the+dissidents
Silencing the Darwin Skeptics

https://www.amazon.com/Silencing-Darwin-Skeptics-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873480/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0981873480&pd_rd_r=B52TA9KWAN88GXZ7MPCF&pd_rd_w=Qw2uO&pd_rd_wg=G0TuK&psc=1&refRID=B52TA9KWAN88GXZ7MPCF

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
https://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Intelligence-Allowed-Ben-Stein/dp/B001BYLFFS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1496579182&sr=8-2&keywords=expelled

free to think? no longer

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"s=booksHYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"qid=1301919284HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"sr=1-1

The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry
https://www.amazon.com/Altenberg-16-Expos%C3%A9-Evolution-Industry/dp/1556439245/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496580983&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=The+Altenberg+16%3A+An+Expos%C3%A9+of+the+Evolution+Industry+by+Suzan+Mazur+North+Atlantic+ Books%2C+Berkeley%2C+CA%2C+2010

4 centuries of education in america
Disc 8 -- Episodes 20-21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsh_oHM8Yis
http://shop.wallbuilders.com/The-American-Heritage-Series-10-DVD-Boxed-Set

Lies in textbooks
Video 4 of kent hovind seminar lies in the textbooks.
http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/

How Textbooks Mislead Dr Don Batten
http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/textbooks-mislead-p-1105.html

what the schools are teaching DR Dr Charles Jackson
http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/what-schools-teaching-supercamp-p-1129.html?osCsid=mbeej69pjaamce1d75sa0o5oa0

Creation Seminar DVD Set by Dr. Kent Hovind
https://2peter3.com/shop/official-creation-seminar-dvd-set-by-dr-kent-hovind-var/

Indoctrinate U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHyvRHrYYBA

IndoctriNation Public Schools & the Decline of Christianity in America
http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-DVD-Schools-Decline-Christianity/dp/B006074Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-DVD-Schools-Decline-Christianity/dp/B006074Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321889741&sr=8-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-DVD-Schools-Decline-Christianity/dp/B006074Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321889741&sr=8-1"qid=1321889741HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-DVD-Schools-Decline-Christianity/dp/B006074Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321889741&sr=8-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-DVD-Schools-Decline-Christianity/dp/B006074Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321889741&sr=8-1"sr=8-1
Agenda: Grinding America Down
https://www.amazon.com/Agenda-Grinding-America-Curtis-Bowers/dp/B003Z3CZGG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496579900&sr=8-1&keywords=Agenda+documentary
AGENDA 2: MASTERS OF DECEIT
https://www.amazon.com/AGENDA-2-MASTERS-OF-DECEIT/dp/B017AD7CDM/ref=pd_sim_74_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B017AD7CDM&pd_rd_r=A7CEZ5X76KRVAZN1ZM70&pd_rd_w=R2owd&pd_rd_wg=BP45q&psc=1&refRID=A7CEZ5X76KRVAZN1ZM70

The Cartel – Documentary on Public education
http://www.thecartelmovie.com/
Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/

Discrimination/Censorship

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”
-J. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, 23, 26
“What we are up against throughout the story is not scientist but officials.”
-C.S Lewis

"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you
can criticize the government but not Darwin."
-Chinese paleontologist Wall Street Journal, "The Church of Darwin", Phillip Johnson, August 16, 1999

A US Department of Education; implementation of a scientific materialist philosophy; studies, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology; students taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and general ethics of a new socialist society; present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy. The whole basis and organization of capitalist science will be revolutionized. Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific. God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools.”
~William Z Foster (1932)


“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”
~C.F. Potter: (1930)

Evolutionist are the most intolerant of other beliefs out of any belief system in the world. They want there faith taught but no one else's. They know that if there views are challenged they dont stand up at all, so there only tactic is to be the only voice herd. There have been thousands of teachers and scientist who have been fired or lost government grant money because they did not believe in evolution, or spoke out against it, or for even showing lies or false information that is in textbooks in support of evolution. Evolutionist are now even trying to ban words that teachers can use in science class refereed to as dangerous words or creation jargon such as “evaluate” “analyze” “critique” etc.


The following are some examples.
Mazur calls attention to the existing censorship against non-Darwinian ideas. She opposes that censorship, and rightly so. Creationists experience far heavier censorship against their ideas. Yet her explanations for the censorship are nearly identical to what creationists say.
“The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry. … . At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolution. Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middlebrow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers” (Mazur, p. ix).
“The mainstream media has failed to cover the non-centrality of the gene story to any extent. … this has to do largely with Darwin-based industry advertising, editors not doing their homework and others just trying to hold on to their jobs” (Mazur, p. 104).
“The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if that’s what most biologists say it’s about and textbooks repeat it” (Mazur, p. 105).
“The consensus of the evolution pack [i.e. the science blogs] still seems to be that if an idea doesn’t fit in with Darwinism and neo-Darwinism—keep it out” (Mazur, p. viii).
“Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory” (Stuart Newman, p. 104).
“One reason that so little progress has been made in this area is that perfectly valid scientific concepts that employ nonadaptive evolutionary mechanisms are rarely considered because of the hegemony of the neo-Darwinian framework” (Stuart Newman, p. 131).
Lynn Margulis reveals how the established worldview (evolution) enforces unity within its ranks:
“[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of “truth”— scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders” (Lynn Margulis, p. 275).
“This is a big debate, which the media is not covering. It’s reached a crescendo and a lot of people are saying there’s a sea change happening” (p. 252).
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

We are being stifled into a politically correct ideology and scientists are being motivated more by fear about their reputations and hunt for money than by curiosity. Freedom of inquiry is allowed only within the context of accepting the ‘fact’ or neo-Darwinian evolution. This will have a huge negative impact not only on science, but also on our well-being and economy. One needs only to remember the consequences of Lysenkoism to understand” (p. 182).She adds: “Science has immense potential for good or evil—I do not like the idea of giving over all scientific decisions to those who do not believe in academic freedom or scientific objectivity … ” (p. 194).

The dogmatic promulgation of Darwinian orthodoxy is widespread. Crocker says:
“The suppression of academic freedom and scientific objectivity is not just found at GMU. During the Louisiana House Educational Committee hearings on SB 773 in Baton Rouge in May of 2008, Bryan Carstens, a Louisiana State professor spoke proudly of how he and 59 other biology professors at LSU have signed a document confirming their public agreement with evolution. Since I was present at the hearing, I recall a revealing exchange when a house member wryly asked him what would happen to someone who refused to sign. The silence was deafening” (p. 185).
Lawyer Ben Stein said it best, on the back cover of this book:
“A chilling true life story of how free speech and free inquiry rights have simply vanished in a large swath of the academic community. This story would be depressing in a 1950’s Iron Curtain country. Unfortunately, it’s a contemporary American story and far more upsetting for that reason. This shutdown of the search for truth is not something that could happen. It DID happen.”
A review of Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters by Dr Caroline Crocker
Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 2010
28 June 2011 Darwinist bid to get hold of Expelled film fails News
Talk origins were trying to buy Expelled “The reason given is so they can then release unpublished material, but equally they could prevent future sales of the film.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/darwinist-bid-to-get-hold-of-expelled-film-fails/


“"George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by 'genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."
http://www.icr.org/article/760/296/


Darwin Lobbyists Urge Ban on "Dangerous" Words in State Science Standards
If you needed more evidence that the Darwin lobby wants to turn science education into little more than unquestioned propaganda, take a look at the outlandish new "HYPERLINK "http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102681667879&s=7736&e=001yzVyrSvo5viiLdKr6ruPYoPZLKGT2g66Xwy10buS-vTXyhIfueyz6M22xIpNQ327mFNH8BfjpMMjfzh8lgKVBA6y3pPSfueEj1Dzu_wNMh7-Ah-CQBH-hRt0GxNDsCfqs94P3mD5YLHZ9ky7EBjxYKm-A-yr_WLYKWZQZkfVVcdDWknSwadz3Q=="studyHYPERLINK "http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102681667879&s=7736&e=001yzVyrSvo5viiLdKr6ruPYoPZLKGT2g66Xwy10buS-vTXyhIfueyz6M22xIpNQ327mFNH8BfjpMMjfzh8lgKVBA6y3pPSfueEj1Dzu_wNMh7-Ah-CQBH-hRt0GxNDsCfqs94P3mD5YLHZ9ky7EBjxYKm-A-yr_WLYKWZQZkfVVcdDWknSwadz3Q=="" evaluating state science standards published by two officials of the National Center for Science Education, the leading Darwin-only lobbying group. Published by a journal devoted to the one-sided teaching of evolution, the article by Louise Mead and Anton Mates condemns various states for filling their science standards with "dangerous" words and "creationist jargon."Just what are these "dangerous" words that must be banned? "Assess," "Analyze," "Evaluate," and "Critique."No, I'm not kidding.


Journal apologizes for censuring intelligent design and pays $10,000 after censuring article June 7 2011 evoltionnews.org
http://www.icr.org/article/4769/study/ study finds scientist manipulate results to support there theories

Award-Winning Neurosurgeon Condemned by Major University for Not Believing in Evolution Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/5182/award-winning-neurosurgeon-condemned-by-major-university-for-not-believing-in-evolution/#ixzz23vulLXFR
What happens to a professor who does everything right but has wrong ideas? |
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19818


why one man was able to take on the establishment
If you want to be a whistleblower you have to be prepared to lose your job. I'm able to do what I'm doing here because I'm nobody. I don't have to keep any academics happy. I don't have to think about the possible consequences of my actions for people I might admire personally who may have based their work on this and they end up looking silly. There are 160,000 psychologists in America and they've got mortgages. I've got the necessary degree of total independence."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown


Stephen myer after 20 years of research published in proceedings of the biological society of washington
the origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, he suggested a intelligent designer was responsible for life on earth because of the impossibility of evolution accounting for the Cambrian explosion. The next day the editor was fired evolutionist were outraged and had big meting right after to decide what to do to the editor for allowing meyers paper to go through. His carer was almost ruined. Nothing was wrong with the science, just the idea of a designer.

when the journal science put out articles why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life many people wanted the editor to be fired the next day. People sent in angry emails etc.not because the science was wrong because it challenged Darwin.

“We have no evidence that the tree of life is a reality”
Eric bapteste evolutionary biologist
New scientist Darwin was wrong cutting down tree of life
201 2692 24 January 2009

many evolutionist boycotted the magazine, sent many angry emails etc, not because the science was bad because it attacked one of darwins main supposed evidences.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-HYPERLINK "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html"misleading-HYPERLINK "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html"claim-scientists.html
http://esciencenews.com/sources/the.guardian.science/2009/01/21/evolution.charles.darwin.was.wrong.about.tree.life
Journal Censors 'Second Law' Paper Refuting Evolution
A new technical paper on this fundamental law of nature completely undermines a naturalistic origins perspective. And this explains why the paper, after first having been approved, was withdrawn from publication.
After the paper was accepted for publication in Applied Mathematics Letters, an anti-design blogger wrote to the editor, warning that the journal's reputation would be tarnished if the paper was printed. So, the journal's editor withdrew it
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html

discrimination in england
http://creation.com/creation-religious-education

In evolutionist francis collins book the language of god, he says evolutionist who believe also in god are fearful to let there beliefs known. How much more creationist?

SCIENTIST FIRED FOR MAKING DINOSAUR DISCOVERY
Finding undermines belief behemoths roamed earth 60 million years ago

“But doing so in an attempt to silence scientific speech at a public university is even more alarming. This should be a wakeup call and warning to the entire world of academia,” he said.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/scientist-fired-for-making-dinosaur-discovery/#9xQMAQeX5Y5ARURw.99
The mainstream journal PLOS ONE published a paper describing the precise coordination between nerves, muscles, and finger motions in the human hand. Its Chinese authors wrote that this anatomy reflects “proper design by the Creator.”5 The evolutionary community revolted and forced the journal to retract the paper,6 which is available online
Liu, M. J. et al. 2016. Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living. PLOS ONE. 11 (1): e0146193.
1. Cressey, D. Paper that says human hand was ‘designed by Creator’ sparks concern. Nature. Posted on nature.com March 3, 2016, accessed July 12, 2016.


International conference result censored
http://creation.com/c14-dinos#txtRef2


Madsen and Madsen have recently given a very clear summary of the characteristics of modernist versus postmodernist science….“A simple criterion for science to qualify as postmodern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth.”…However, these criteria, admirable as they are, are insufficient for a liberatory postmodern science: they liberate human beings from the tyranny of “absolute truth” and “objective reality”, but not necessarily from the tyranny of other human beings. In Andrew Ross’ words, we need a science “that will be publicly answerable and of some service to progressive interests” [i.e., promoting politically humanistic “progress” such as achieving so-called “liberation theology” agenda goals]
Sokal, A. 1996. Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text, #46/#47 (spring/summer 1996), 217-252. After publishing his postmodernism-promoting “epistemology” article in Social Text,Sokal exposed his journalistic experiment in “A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies,” Lingua Franca, May/June 1996, pages 62-64, describing his successful experiment as publishing “an article liberally salted with nonsense…[that] sounded good and…flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.” Embracing a hoax in order to embrace evolutionary assumptions is known to happen in paleontology as well. Dr. Timothy L. Clarey debunked the “Archaeoraptor” hoax (also known as the “Piltdown bird”) that National Geographic fell for: Clarey, T. 2006. Dinosaurs vs. Birds: The Fossils Don’t Lie.Acts & Facts. 35 (9). See also Austin, S. A. 2000. Archaeoraptor: Feathered Dinosaur From National Geographic Doesn’t Fly. Acts & Facts. 29 (3).



A Special Thank You from David Berlinski
December 11, 2008

As one of the scholars who has been "expelled"by the scientific community for espousing heretical doubts about Darwin, I'd like to say: Thank you. Thank you for having the chutzpahto stand up for your fellow heretics by signing Discovery Institute's Academic Freedom Petition(www.academicfreedompetition.com).
You may have seen me in Expelledwith Ben Stein. I was the one in the chic Paris apartment. I am one of those people who are not supposed to exist in the scientific community--an intellectual (and an agnostic one, at that!) who finds Darwin's theory of evolution unpersuasive.
Although Darwinism is very often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution. They know better and they are not stupid.

Among evolutionary biologists, the problems with Darwin's theory are well known. In the privacy of the faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

"Darwin?" a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. "That's just the party line."

Alas, Darwin's theory serves as the creation myth of our time, and it demands an especially militant form of advocacy, as anyone can attest who has had the misfortune to pick up such churlish volumes as The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins or Letter to a Christan Nation by Sam Harris. In the view of these modern witch-hunters, anyone who disagrees with Darwin must be burned at the stake.


shows examples through history and why consensus science is anti science and harmful to science. Also shows examples of discrimination against those who dare challenge the consensus.

78–84
Why consensus science is anti-science
Paper by Jerry Bergman
Journal of Creation Volume 27, Issue 2Published August 2013

“Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: ‘ham-fisted’, ‘looney Marxist hangover’, ‘secular creationist’, ‘philosopher’ (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), ‘quack’, ‘crackpot’ …“In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.” -The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur


An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PloS-ONE, proudly stated:
‘it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.’
‘If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?
Noma referring to
For example, he discusses a common evolutionary propaganda tactic, NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), invented by the late Marxist Stephen Jay Gould. This pretends that science and religion are two non-intersecting categories of thought, so cannot prove or disprove each other. We have shown that this is a form of the fallacious fact-value distinction, and is philosophically bankrupt (see Stephen Jay Gould and NOMA). Zivkovic agrees that it’s false, but justifies its pretence all the same

28 June 2011
Darwinist bid to get hold of Expelled film fails
News
A bid by Darwinists to acquire rights to the Expelled documentary on the ID theorists has failed. From TOAF:
Combined with the funds the Foundation already had on hand, we had just over $50,000 available to bid on the film (and pay the 10% buyer’s premium). The winning bid, however, was $201,000. Because all of the bidders were anonymous, we do not know identity of the winning bidder.
Film probably went to business interest. More later.
Update, just in: Walt Ruloff and his associates, who were the original producers of EXPELLED, won the auction. More later.
Timeline
Talk origins were trying to buy Expelled “The reason given is so they can then release unpublished material, but equally they could prevent future sales of the film.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/darwinist-bid-to-get-hold-of-expelled-film-fails/

Journal apologizes for censuring intelligent design and pays 10,000 after censuring article june 7 2011 evoltionnews.org



Greetings!
Would Thomas Jefferson be blacklisted from your local high school or college because of his scientific views?

Incredibly, the answer is probably yes. Jefferson believed that nature provides powerful evidence of intelligent design, and many people are working overtime to silence any teacher or professor who voices support for intelligent design or who dares to question Darwin's theory of evolution.

As we celebrate this month our inalienable rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, please remember to help defend the freedom to question Darwin. Here are three things you can do:

First, spread the word about Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer's blockbuster new book about the evidence of intelligent design inside our DNA. If distributed widely enough, this book can help open hearts and minds as to why our culture needs more debate about the evidence for and against Darwinism.

Second, urge your friends to sign the Academic Freedom Petition. Since last year, more than 30,000 people have signed this simple statement in support of academic freedom on evolution, and the petition was cited before the Texas Board of Education to show public support for teaching both sides of the debate. Help us reach our goal of 50,000 signers!

Third, forward this Academic Freedom newsletter to your friends, and encourage them to sign up for continuing updates so they can be kept informed of the threats to open discussion on evolution and how they can help.

Thank you for being willing to stand up for freedom!

Sincerely,

John G. West, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute


http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDcaldwell.php
http://www.rae.org/WBGSU.html

Support Free Speech: Tell California Science Center to Reinstate Screening of Intelligent Design Film

Let your voice be heard! In a clear act of government censorship, the California Science Center-a "department of the State of California"-has canceled the Los Angeles premiere of the pro-intelligent design film Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record. A private group, the American Freedom Alliance, had rented the California Science Center's IMAX theater for the screening. But after the screening attracted public attention, the Science Center decided to pull the plug on the event in clear violation of the freedom of speech and equal protection.

dalizing Bookstores and Censoring Books in the Name of Darwin
Just in time for Academic Freedom Day, Feb. 12 (aka Darwin Day), graduate student Michael Barton at Montana State University boasts of regularly going into his local bookstore and purging books critical of Darwin from the science section of the store and reshelving them in the religion section. This past Sunday Barton posted a report about his most recent act of vandalism:
Today I moved [Michael Behe's] The Edge of Evolution and [Benjamin Wiker's] The Darwin Myth away from the shelve directly under where copies of Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth were, and placed them next to--I just had to--the Adventure Bible and the Princess Bible in the religion section.
Whatever Barton claims, his actions constitute censorship, pure and simple. Barton is trying to hide books he doesn't like in order to prevent others from being exposed to views with which he disagrees. Indeed, he is apparently so insecure about the ability of Darwinists like Dawkins to make their case that he thinks he has the duty to vandalize private bookstores in order to keep the books of Darwin's critics away from the public. Barton's activities are not only juvenile, they may well be illegal.

Censors like Barton aren't doing Darwinian evolution any favors. They merely prove to the public just how bigoted and intolerant the Darwinist establishment has become. Much like certain global warming fanatics, Darwinist ideologues increasingly place themselves above the law and try to exempt themselves of any sort of real accountability.

Ironically, Darwin himself was a lot more fair-minded than his latter-day defenders. Writing at the beginning of On the Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledged that "a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."


Heresy in Israel! Chief education scientist dismissed for denying evolution and global warming

http://creation.com/heresy-in-israel-gavriel-avital


Scientist alleges religious discrimination in KY
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1256892

question evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburnerHYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham"&HYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham"utm_medium=feedHYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham"&HYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham"utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham)


Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980:
‘Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.’


As Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, noted, those who toe the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them, but scientists:
‘who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
Lindzen, R., Climate of Fear, OpinionJournal, 12 April 2006


Richard Lamsden became a christian and was expelled from the science faculty at Tulane university see transformed by the evidence testimonies of leading creationist
The concealment of funding
Lynn Margulis saw that government funding for evolutionary research comes in a disjointed manner from various distinctly separate government agencies and departments, rather than from a coherent single entity. So she, together with other evolutionists, wrote a letter to the National Science Foundation [NSF] urging it to set up a single entity, especially for funding evolution research.
“So we talked about ways of putting pressure on the National Science Foundation to set up an evolution section. … . This would lead to reduction of redundancy and save money for the funding agencies. … . Anyway, I deduced that the NSF scientist-bureaucrats were conflicted about our letter. The woman [representative from the NSF] assigned to answer us wrote to say there were so many American citizens opposed to evolution that if the NSF put chemistry, geology, etc. into a single evolution division, it would be like sticking out our heads to be chopped off. Such a proposal, no matter its intellectual validity, would surely not fly! She said the NSF thought it would strengthen evolution science by avoidance of the word ‘evolution’ and not by centralizing research activities” (Lynn Margulis, pp. 263–264).
This shows how a centralized government can relabel things and partition a large funding stream in various confusing ways, so as to intentionally obscure where taxpayer money is going—and intentionally get around the will of the people. Evolutionists use this maneuver, and Mazur reports no objection to it. Evolutionists feel justified in intentionally withholding key information from the public. This is consistent with their belief system that morals are merely products of evolution.
A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010
reviewed by Walter J. ReMine


Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980:
‘Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.’
‘Anyone who questions man’s reasoning, particularly on the origin of the physical world, faces an arrogance almost beyond comprehension. Many scientists realize the weak underpinnings of scientific models but the spokesmen of naturalism and their media advocates will not abide anything that questions either the supremacy of man, his reasoning power or his conclusions. I have seen media interviewers, who gladly try to tear Christian and conservative guests to pieces, grovel before a scientist who is [one of the] illuminati of evolutionary thought. No one would dare to try to question a living example of the superiority of man’s reasoning power. They are in the presence of a high priest of the one and only knowledge — let all the earth keep silent before him!’
Dr Emmett Williams, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29(2):84, September 1992.


Prominent evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne recently has made this remarkable assertion:
… adherence to ID (which, after all, claims to be a nonreligious theory) should be absolute grounds for not hiring a science professor.
… I abhor discrimination against hiring simply because of someone’s religion …


Yet Coyne has called for the resignation of Dr. Francis Collins, an esteemed scientist who is the director of the National Institutes of Health and who is an opponent of ID. Coyne demands Collins’ resignation merely because Collins has publicly expressed his Christian views.
Coyne:
Collins gets away with this kind of stuff [i.e. speaking publicly about the compatibility between science and his belief in God] only because, in America, Christianity is a socially sanctioned superstition. He’s the chief government scientist, but he won’t stop conflating science and faith. He had his chance, and he blew it. He should step down.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/jerry_coynes_blacklist045041.html


n 1999 Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, said on CNN: "I think we should teach a lot about evolution. In fact, I think we should teach more than the evolutionary science teachers want the students to know. The problem is what we're getting is a philosophy that's claimed to be scientific fact, a lot of distortion in the textbooks, and all the difficult problems left out, because they don't want people to ask tough questions."
Secular Humanists seek to ban origins debate in the UK education system
http://creation.com/humanist-crisis-campaign


Atheist militants who silence Christians are as bad as Tudor tyrants, says top judge

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3082503/Atheist-militants-silence-Christians-bad-Tudor-tyrants-says-judge.html#ixzz57z9JmyPL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Education or Indoctrination
‘Edcation is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing culture. And the prevailing culture in the case of Campbell’s school, and many other schools in the country, is a deeply conservative religious culture.’ Zivkovic, Bora (aka ‘Coturnix), Why teaching evolution is dangerous, <HYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evolutionist-its-ok-to-deceive-students-to-believe-evolution#endRef4"scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/08/
why_teaching_evolution_is_dang.phpHYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evolutionist-its-ok-to-deceive-students-to-believe-evolution#endRef4"> 25 August 2008
“The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” -Abraham Lincoln
Education Is a System of Indoctrination of the Young - Noam Chomsky
maybe on of the biggest effects on progressive and the indoctrination system in america love how he openly says education system is indoctrination system by liberal elites training the young to be obedient,conformist,do what your told, dont think to much,stay passive, dont ask questions,filter out for obedience and in ideological subjects the most conformity and obedience] people, that is basically what the system is about. Purpose is authority it is the opposite of education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVqMAlgAnlo


Over and over, we have seen that liberal and secular bias is primarily accomplished by exclusion, by leaving out the opposing position. Such a bias is much harder to observe than a positive vilification or direct criticism, but it is the essence of censorship. It is effective not only because it is hard to observe--it isn't there--and therefore hard to counteract, but also because it makes only the liberal, secular positions familiar and plausible.
Dr. Paul Vits Censorship: Evidence of bias in our children's textbooks

The origins of progressivism in America started around 1820. A ideology and philosophy unknown and unthinkable to guard against by the founding fathers. The goal being to transform America into a socialist, communist utopia accomplished mainly through the education system. Socialist like Robert Owen in the 1820's formed Americas first communist secular colony in Indiana. To get rid of all religion he believed was the cause of all evil, to “educate without religion.” Education had previously been done by local church or homeschooling.

“The public school movement, or statist education, did not exists until the 1830's”
-Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Lincolns Marxist
The first Public school in America was in Boston in 1822, because they knew a public education system [for all] would be the best way for a government to control and change public opinion. Speaking of the first public school James carter a Harvard education “reformer” said
“A state controlled teachers collage [ government approved teachers] can be a engine to sway the public sentiment, morals and the public religion more powerful than any in the possession of the government”
-James Carter Harvard 1795–1849

“The conversion of american education into a instrument of statism was the most important step into socialism that a society can take”
-R.L Rushdooney the Nature of the American System
In government controlled schools, the teachers would be trained to do government bidding. Public school would became training ground for the industrial revolution that, like big government with voters, needed “Obedient factory workers.” The department of agriculture worked with public schools so
“Future generations must be made into pragmatic American materialists suitable for labor and production...Education turned from creating good men and woman to creating obedient tools” -Clyde Wilson professor of History University of South Carolina ”
Later the education system would be influence by Karl Marx communist manifesto in 1848 that would further change America education.

Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
-Communist Manifesto
Part of Marx's goals were to destroy the family, free education for all, [Public government education only] and to destroy home school as a option. Later G Stanley Hall applied Darwinian evolution to public schools. Training kids as evolved animals with age segregation, grade based training, unlike the early american one room school house. Further changed were made by those like John Dewey. The ultimate goal was to replace God with government. It was warned against by the founders of America that government was limited and should not control education, as James Madison warned a unchecked federal government would do, yet assuring that our government was not of this kind, but tied down by the constitution.

Our current education system is still based on the outdated 1860's industrial system, to create a compliant worker class for industry, used by the same progressives and northern industrialist as after the civil war. It is still used to create young dependents on the state [See the documentaries - Common Core Building the machine /Indoctrination public schools and the decline of Christianity in America / Indoctrinate U / Agenda/ America were would the world be without her/ The wallbuilders American heritage series and building on the American heritage series by David Barton /You tube videos RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms/ and Education Is a System of Indoctrination of the Young - Noam Chomsky/ ].
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the [school] classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism … It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.” -Dunphy, J., A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, 23, 26 (emphases added), cited by Wendell R. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited, vol. 2, p. 257

[total relism]

That's exactly the part I was referring to when I said "some examples that lack any sort of detail or explanation". There is zero context to these quotes and several of them don't even appear to be quotes but summaries by someone who might have an agenda or misinterpreted them. If you think that were "evidence", it's not. A lot of things can be important here, like who performed these datings? Scientists or kids in a school project? When were they performed? When instruments were still crude or with more advanced ones? How far developed was the science at the time? Given that most of your sources are from the 1990s, those examples could be from the 1970s when the method wasn't nearly as developed as it is today and the errors could long have been corrected.
You keep providing out of context quotes as though they were evidence, but they really aren't. I don't have to prove your evidence wrong if you have none.


Just the reason I gave references so you could check them out. 90% come from peer reviewed evolutionist journals, the other 10% from creation journals or published books by evolutionist or creationist.




Again, out of context quotes of people I don't even know. From the early 2000s at best it seems. The only thing they appear to prove is that science develops and corrects its own past mistakes. And it still disagrees with you after that. As for the moon, the question was why the moon's two halves are so different and how you explain that? That's not a theory, that's an observed fact. I wanted you to give your explanation, I already knew that you wouldn't accept the given ones.

I was quoting your article you posted. Did you ever read what you posted? I agree that science corrects mistakes. But the issue we have today is a secular worldview dominates and wont allow science to correct their worldviews. it does anyways but they ignore or wont allow it to be herd.

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . ."Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."
—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science.
"It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries." -Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up." —*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation." —*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119


"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved." —*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses." —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147


Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely." —*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.



and on and on.



As for the different chemical makeup of the moon I really am unsure. Likely geological activity or bombardments have effect the surface.

[total relism]

Scientist Speak of Evolution Quotes you wont see on CNN or on National geographic


"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . ."Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."
—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science.
"It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries." -Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40.

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."
—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

evolutionist Richard Dawkins: "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."
Broadcast Transcript. NOW with Bill Moyers. Posted on pbs.org December 3, 2004, accessed October 28, 2010.

“either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
-prof John Lennox fellow of mathimaticks and philosophy of science oxford university 2009

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up." —*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation."
—*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."
—*Robert Jastrow, The
Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.



"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."
—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved." —*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."
—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147


"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint." —*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31

"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely." —*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.


"I feel that the effect of the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, ‘Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?’ The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge." —*Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981


"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." —*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].


"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199 After looking over all the evidence, the Genesis account of Creation is far more believable than is the evolutionary tale.
"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis." —*Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p. 18.

Evolution would require incredible miracles; and it matters not whether they be fast or slow. They would still be incredible miracles.
"Slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one." —*G.K. Chesterton (1925).


"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science." —*Colin Patterson, The Listener (senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London).

"I feel that the effect of the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, ‘Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?’ The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge." —*Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).


“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”
Behe, pp. 186–187.

“The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s ‘Melancholia’ is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.” [emphasis in original] Grassé, p. 104.
"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause."
—*G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary: the theory of evolution is impossible."
—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De l’evolution," Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 8.

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."
—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]

doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.


It gives to mankind the most incredible of deities: random chance.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity: omnipotent chance."
—*T. -Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.


"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."
—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).


"A hypothesis is empirical and scientific only if it can be tested by experience . . A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science." —*Francis J. Ayala, "Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?" American Scientist, Vol. 82, Nov.-Dec. 1974, p. 700.



"Science positively demands creation. "
—Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), p. 94


The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
*D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 p. 233

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions." *Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.


" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions."
—*Science, January 22, 1965, p. 389

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."
Grassé, Pierre-Paul, 1977, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, NY, pg. 8


"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe."
—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."
—Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs." —*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011

“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations “ -enzyme expert Dr matti Leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature

“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205


“There are people spouting off as if we know the answer. We don’t know the answer” (Stuart Kauffman, p. 54).
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

“[W]hile the Altenberg 16 have roots in neo-Darwinian theory, they recognize the need to challenge the prevailing Modern Synthesis, because there’s too much it doesn’t explain [emphasis added]” (p. vii).“The Altenberg 16 … recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence [emphasis added]”
(p. 19).The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations
-enzyme expert Dr matti leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature

From the first cell that coalesced in the primordial soup to the magnificent intricacies of Homo sapiens, the evolution of life—as everyone knows—has been one long drive toward greater complexity. The only trouble with what everyone knows…is that there is no evidence it’s true
http://discovermagazine.com/1993/jun/onwardandupward235

“… starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin points out, ‘the origins of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.’
Gilbert, Scott et al., Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology, Developmental Biology 173:357’372, 1996

‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…’
From a French recording of internationally recognised geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.

‘Genetics has no proofs for evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer one looks at the evidence for evolution the less one finds of substance. In fact the theory keeps on postulating evidence, and failing to find it, moves on to other postulates (fossil missing links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations, molecular phylogenetic sequences, etc.). This is not science.’ Professor Maciej Giertych, B.A., M.A. Oxon, Ph.D. Toronto, D.Sc. Poznan, Head of Genetics Department, Polish Academy of Scienced, Institute of Dendrology, Poland.

“The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself.”
Donoghue, P. C. J. 2007. Paleontology: Embryonic identity crisis. Nature. 445 (7124): 155.

‘Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.’
-Philip Skell, ‘Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology’, The Scientist 19(16):10, 29 August 2005. The whole article can be read here. There is a similar article at: Philip S. Skell, The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution: Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 February 2009.


‘Anyone who questions man’s reasoning, particularly on the origin of the physical world, faces an arrogance almost beyond comprehension. Many scientists realize the weak underpinnings of scientific models but the spokesmen of naturalism and their media advocates will not abide anything that questions either the supremacy of man, his reasoning power or his conclusions. I have seen media interviewers, who gladly try to tear Christian and conservative guests to pieces, grovel before a scientist who is [one of the] illuminati of evolutionary thought. No one would dare to try to question a living example of the superiority of man’s reasoning power. They are in the presence of a high priest of the one and only knowledge — let all the earth keep silent before him!’ -Dr Emmett Williams, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29(2):84, September 1992.

Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980:
‘Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.

"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.

“often a cold shudder has has run through me and i have asked myself whether i may have devoted myself to a phantacy”.
-charles darwin life and letters 1887 vol 2 p229


1858-----"You will be greatly disappointed by the forthcoming book. It will be
grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than
collating some facts, though I myself think I see my way approximately on the
origin of the species. But alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is for
an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas."
-Charles Darwin,1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his 'Origin of Species'.

"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science. It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries."
-Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." —*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].

"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely." —*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory—is it then a science or faith?"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by
*Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." —*Arthur N. Field

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." —R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."
—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute, 1943, p. 63.

"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Borger calls ‘objectification,’ the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power."
—*T. Lessl, "Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).


" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].


"The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions." —*Science, January 22, 1965, p. 389



" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "
—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries." Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

"evolution is a antiscintfic fable intended to avoid accountability to god"
2011 Dr David stone laser physicists with 5 degrees including PHD in mechanical endangering from Michigan state U creation mag 34 [1] 2012

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."
—*Albert Fleishman, zoologist.

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."
—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]

I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."
—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks of Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138

"Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis [Darwinism] could be accepted with the credulity that it has. I think . . this age is one of the most credulous in history."
—Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom (1980), p. 59.

.
"The doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.
It has produced a decline in scientific integrity.


"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
—Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 6th ed., London: John Murray, 1859, p. 182.

[total relism]

Why I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist


“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
-Malcolm Maggeridge

“Let no one say we are in an unimaginative age, neither the greeks nor the norseman ever invented a better story. Even to the present day, in certain moods, I could almost find it in my heart to wish that it was not mythical, but true. And yet, how could it be.”
-C.S Lewis on evolution Quoted in C.S Lewis Anti-Darwinist Jerry Bergman WIPF and Stock Eugene Oregon 2016


From Evolutionist to Creationist

I was raised to believe in evolution through the politically correct government school system and also influenced my media and documentary types. At this time in my life [22 and under] I did not know how to think critically, I simply was taught to accept anything I was told and repeat it back, the better I could the better I was. It was not until around 23 I was challenged to look critically at what I had accepted without question. This led me to read sources I did not know existed and was given information that was deliberately left out of textbooks. I started watching debates and time and again the creation side was verified and the evolutionist side was shown to be built on faith and assumptions contrary to observation. I also found evolutionist had distorted evidence and lied to get me to believe in their religion. This pushed me from their faith. The final straw is in their inability to point to any one example for upward complexity evolution. Despite million of tax money and many years invested, not one evidence can be found to support evolution by common decent. However there are added issues, there are many lines of evidence from observation that refute evolution and put it in the faith alone category. It is ok to believe it, but that is a faith statement.


The Fossil Record

The fossil record deserves its own post and will come later.


Mutations/Information

Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity. Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts.

20934


Mutations work against evolution by destroying information. We have done millions of years worth of experiments with fruit fly's and bacteria and noone has ever observed new information being created. We also have all of our observation with living things that show evolution is impossible by mutations. If evolution cannot explain the origin of genetic information than evolution is refuted by observation.


“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory.”
-Spetner, L. 1997. Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of evolution. Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press.

‘biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry … (and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.’
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.

“There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
-DR Werner Gitt head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology

“The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it.” remains a formidable problem.”
- Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p81

"Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."
Spetner, L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.


“the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex over time.”
Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics 2012

“The main mechanism for producing gentic variety required for evolution, random mutation, has been falsified”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and forgeries 2017


Origin of Life From Non life

For life to come from non life a few scientific laws such as the law of information and the law of The law of biogenesis must be violated.


"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
-Horgan, J. Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011.

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998



Irreducible complexity

There are many examples of biological systems that could not have arisen one at a time over long periods of time, but had to be there together at same time. An example, certain protein machines are needed to read DNA, but the protein machines themselves are codded for in the DNA. Or that the heart kidney and lung all work together, without any one of them the others could not survive. Enzymes controlled dna systems replication
dna controlled rna systems transcription, rna controlled protein sythesis translation


“According to evolution this toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all phyla, before first appearance of phyla, prior to Cambrian explosion, prior to muticulular life. The gens that control body plans had to originate, when there were no bodies to control embryonic development.Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plans—and these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the various phyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the ‘Developmental Genetic Toolkit’. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phyla—in other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian— prior to the origin of multicellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos.
“At the point when the modern animal body plans first emerged [half a billion years ago] just about all the genes that are used in modern organisms to make embryos were already there. They had evolved in the single-celled world but they weren’t doing embryogenesis [Mazur’s braces]” (Stuart Newman, p. 52).
Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot ‘look ahead’ and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the ‘tools’ for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization.
Stuart Newman’s paper, which “served as the centerpiece of the Altenberg symposium” (Mazur, p. 12), claims that all 35 or so animal phyla physically self-organized by the time of the Cambrian explosion, and selection followed later as a ‘stabilizer’ of the self-organized novelties.
“Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321).
A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010


How do things like immune system and digestive system evolve?

There are many things like the bacteria flagelum that has 40 parts that would not work together unless all there from beginning.

The heart and placenta. A pregnant woman’s placenta secretes progesterone, a hormone that signals her tiny baby’s cells to take up less cholesterol. Cholesterol is a vital component of all body cells, including heart cells, and the placenta regulates cholesterol levels. Thus, the healthy development of a baby’s heart depends on the mother’s placenta. Likewise, the placental cells would fail to manufacture progesterone or perform their other vital tasks without a blood supply, which the mother’s heart generates. Thus, the placenta and heart function interdependently to knit a baby.So, which came first? The heart could not have come first since it would not have formed without the placenta. But if the placenta came first, it could not have worked without a heart. Both organs had to arise simultaneously, pointing toward a sudden miracle!

The Cambrian Explosion

“ To be honest , to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies Darwinism, something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”
-Walter remine p 26 JOC 2012 26 [1]

In the early Cambrian Rocks 100 phylum [only 30 living today, phylum is largest category of organism species, genus, family etc. ] Are found in the "lowest" level of rocks called the Cambrian. It is were life first appears in the fossil record. So more diversity of life appears there, than alive today, with no fossils before it at all. No transitional forms for them.There are vast numbers—billions—of fossils of thousands of different species of complex creatures in the Cambrian,—and below it is next to nothing. The vast host of transitional species leading up to the complex Cambrian species are totally missing. Darwin said about the Cambrian explosion I can give no satisfactory answer.

“all of the known animal bodies plans seem to have appeared in the Cambrian”
-Rudolf raff evolutionary biologist 2009

“Cambrian period of only 20mya”
Richard Dawkins the greatest show on earth

“ It know appears that this Cambrian explosion during which nearly all the extinct animal phyla have emerged lasted only 6-10 million yearsAnd we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
-Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), p. 229.

"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form. The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits." —*Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” -Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.


Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian, and none are ever found beneath it in the Precambrian ( *Preston Cloud, "Pseudofossils: A Plea for Caution," in Geology, November 1973, pp. 123-127).


Origin of Sexually Reproduction

Reproduction needs complete complementary reproductive organs, but evolution is not goal orientated or able to plan ahead, how could all the complex organs develop over thousands of generations when the organism cannot produce without them? And suppose to happen in same place and time?
Complexity of reproductive system
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made


Origin of non Material Things like Information, Love, Memory, Laws of Logic, Science, Morality etc

If evolution were true and all there was is just matter and motion. How could things like love memory morality information exist? If evolution were true, science would not make sense.


Science only Makes Sense in a Biblical Worldview

If Evolution Were True Would Science be Possible?

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.


Design and Complexity

If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?


"Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:] ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon he requires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design."
—*Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence, p. 23.

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
-Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.


So it seems to me the clear answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation. There are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.

If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimeter across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1
-Feringa, B. L. 2000. Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408 (6809): 151-154.

biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information. each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over, and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt?

The DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were , how many and when.

Some functions of cellular machines DNA maintenance robots that proofread information, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice in corrections, and rewind the strands
Intracellular elevators
Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports
Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states
Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion
Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor
A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks
A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Real engines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2
Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.


Biovision harvard
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/

protein being made
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pXtceGbjLI


An adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections,d more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.e
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html


“if all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin!”
-In the beginig walt brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI3.html

Two free quick videos on complexity
http://creation.com/DNA-repair-enzyme
free 4 part video of the complexity of the human reproduction systems
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made
the hearing ear
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/hearing-ear/hearing-ear
the seeing eye
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/seeing-eye/seeing-eye



Fully-Developed Organs

All species appear fully developed, not partly developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.

Law of Thermodynamics

evolution teaches matter is not conservative but self originating - the first law of thermodynamics disproves this
first law -energy cannot by itself be created or destroyed . energy may be changed from one form into another but the total amount remains unchanged the sum total of the energy (or its matter) will always remain the same

no new matter or energy will make itself. since matter /energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself only a outside agency or power can make or destroy it. the creation of the universe must be non material because if it was material it would be subject to decay like all material, so the creator must be non material spiritual and eternal psalm 90.2

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.

This law is completely constant with creation from order to disorder. Stars blow up, run out of fuel, mutations kill destroy, things go from complex to disorganized. We see stars dying not being created, life is not just pooping up around us. You have to make repairs to your car and house when things are left to themselves they disintegrate deteriorate, most jobs are because of the second law. We have never observed the opposite things going from disorder to order less complex to more[without outside intelligence].

[total relism]

Biblical Creation vs Evolution

Worldviews

Definition of Science- is knowledge gained by testing study and observation. Science cannot be wrong and is things we can know for sure and is repeatable and testable. [Though our conclusions may be wrong]

Definition of Religion- beliefs about the cause concern purpose of the universe.


Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview, we cannot test a monkey evolving into man, complex structures evolving, the big bang, the origin of life or fish turning into amphibians. Nor can we test Noah flood or the creation week. These are both religious worldviews competing for how to understand the world around us in our time. One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe and normal processes. The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, catastrophe both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.

Our worldview is our basic beliefs about the universe and drives how we interpret the evidence. When I observe a magician cut a person in half, I conclude it was a trick, that no one was really cut in half regardless of what I thought I saw. I draw the conclusion not because of the evidence but because my worldview prevents me from drawing the wrong conclusion. If your neighbor says he saw a UFO last night your worldview will immediately kick in and help you process and interpret the evidence, as your neighbor provides more details you will begin to form hypothesis based on your worldview. Maybe she saw a top secret government aircraft, maybe she was drinking again, maybe it was just Venus or a weird light from the sky. However if ones worldview already does believe in ufos and aliens, than you will see this as more evidence to back up your belief.


This is why creation scientist and evolutionary scientist can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusion. For example there are trillions of dead plant and animals laid down by water fossilized all over the earth that is a fact that is observable. Based on the belief system of the researcher one says look, it must have taken billions of years to create all these fossils, uniformitarnism, slowly over millions of years. One animal fall in a lake and was buried and fossilized than later another was caught in a local flood, than another by a surging river etc evidence for billions of years it had to take that long to create all these fossils what more evidence do you need for millions of years. Than another researcher says wow, look trillions of fossils rapidly laid down by water all over the earth, just what you would expect from a global flood, what more evidence do you need the bible is true. The evidence is the same the conclusion is different based on their worldview. So what everyone needs to decide [and please think for yourself dont just believe what you are told] Is who makes better sense of the evidence? Were does the evidence as a whole fit better? Who has to make adjustments more and invoke more miracles to save there religion?
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias

Both sides have problems still unanswered as we are working to explain the unobservable past, but there is so much we do know that everyone should be able to make a educated decision.


Defining Evolution

Evolutionist will often point to adaptation, natural selection , survival of the fittest, change in gene frequency and other similar biological changes in organisms as evidence for evolution. Not one of these is rejected by creationist or the bible. Creationist accept and agree with all of the above. If evolutionist maintain evolution is nothing but “change” or natural selection, than me and all other creationist are evolutionist.

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated”
-The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

But we argue those changes dont have anything to do with evolution properly defined. Evolutionist are able to pull a bait and switch by defining evolution two separate ways. Because they control public education and almost all media, they can then give the kids evidence for natural selection, or adaptation, and sell that as “evolution.” they can than on a separate page, define evolution in a completely different way, yet use natural section as evidence for the second definition of witch there is no evidence.

"If evolution is to occur . .living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or alteration of their stored information." —George Gaylord Simpson, "The Non-prevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143, (1964), p. 772.

Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity. Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts. Evolutionist claim to exspalin origins, so origins is what they must be able to show through an evolutionary mechanism.

“From the first cell that coalesced in the primordial soup to the magnificent intricacies of Homo sapiens, the evolution of life—as everyone knows—has been one long drive toward greater complexity. The only trouble with what everyone knows…is that there is no evidence it’s true.”
-Onward and Upward? By Lori Oliwenstein|Tuesday, June 01, 1993 Discover Magazine

"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme, system, or organ."
—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 67-68

Scientist who are Biblical Creationist

There are thousands of PhD scientist that believe in biblical creation despite the near total control of education system by evolutionist through the courts. Here are some of the better known creationist and organizations.

http://www.creationresearch.org/ over 1 thousand members with scientific degrees over 600 with Phd's.
650 with phd
http://www.creation.or.kr/ at one point had 2,000 phd with 200 non phd
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ not creation but scientist who don't believe in evolution last I herd over 800
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ list of many phd creation scientist
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ run by many phd scientist
http://creation.com/ run by many phd creation scientist
http://www.icr.org/ run by many phd creation scientist
there are many more but hopefully this will show as a example many scientist reject evolution.


What is Biblical Creation?

[I]I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C. S. Lewis

We believe Noah's flood was global killing all land dwelling life at that time. We believe this is confirmed by the fact that there are trillions of dead plants and animals laid down by water in massive graves all over the earth. We believe the earth was created in 6 literal days thousands of years ago. We believe this is confirmed by the many dating methods that show the earth cannot be millions of years old and the false assumptions and problems with dating methods such as radiometric dating. We believe all animals produce after their own kind and all the genetic information was there in the original created kinds. We believe this is verified by science and observation.

I believe there was a original perfect creation that is now falling apart because of sin and the curse. Now death, disease, mutations have entered gods once perfect creation. This is why we see stars blowing up, people and animals dying, decaying and breaking down. Everything tends towards disorder, complex to disorder. Evolution says the opposite, disorder to order, incoplex to greater complexity over time, they cannot be further from each other. Evolution claims it all started from nothing that exploded in a big bang that produced hydrogen which is a order less tasteless invisible gas. So they say out of this gas stars started to form planets and than galaxies the higher elements were created, than the earth formed a hard crust surface were it rained for billions of years on the rocks that magically created life. That life was able to eat, reproduce etc, than that single celled organism gave rise to all life on earth so it increase in complexity. So matter must be able to go from simple to complex, disorder to order, if evolution is true. Really evolutionist must believe that hydrogen gas, a order less tasteless, invisible gas, given long enough will turn into people. Creation says the opposite complexity and order to disorder. The major creation organization run by PHD scientist and peer reviewed journals are linked below.

https://creation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
https://answersingenesis.org/?sitehist=1511527411277


https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/
https://www.creationresearch.org/
https://creation.com/journal-of-creation


Biblical Creation- Natural Selection and Speciation


“What Darwin really accounted for was not the origin, but the extermination of species.”
-C.S Lewis


I am a biblical creationist I believe everything was created to reproduce after its own kind, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats etc There is alot of variety in these animals so that a dog, coyote, and wolf have a common ancestor, but it was from the original dog kind, they have know varied and produce the many kinds today. But all the information was already present the variation we see in animals today was already present in the original producing kind.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-2-variation-and-natural-selection-versus-evolution
https://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

2093520936

So in the above picture on the left we see how variation can lead to genetic change in a population. The original created pair of dogs had the genes for both Long [L] and short fur [S]. They produced a variety in their offspring where some received only Long fur genes and some only short fur genes. This is a very basic example of how variation within the kind that eventually leads to speaciation [dog, wolf, coyote] happens. The picture on the right is an example of this. The original dog kid's descendants spreads out over various terrain and those with short fur survive better than those with longer fur in the hotter climate and natural selection favors those with short fur and the long fur die out. In the north the long fur have the advantage and the short fur die out. But all the original information to produce the genes for long fur and short fur are already present in the original biblical kind.

“natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation.... Natural selection only affects changes in the frequency of the variants once they appear; it cannot directly address the reasons for the existence of the variants.” --Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986

Biblical Kind

21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. ...24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
-Genesis 1

The bible says God created life to reproduce after its own kind. God created various separate distinct kinds [not species] of animals. So a wolf coyote and dog shared a common ancestor. Today we often use the term species for multiple animals within the same biblical kind. For example a camel and a llama can breed. A Lynx and a bobcat, yak and cow, lion and tiger, leopard and jaguar, dingo and dog, coyote and dog, gray wolf and coyote, killer whale and bottle nose dolphin, a zebra and donkey, a zebra and horse and on and on. Because these species all originated from the original biblical kind God created they can still interbreed. They have since diversified but all the potential for change was within the original kind God created.


20937


Biblical Creation and Mutations



20938


Mutations happen but all observation and experimentation shows they work against evolution. Mutations reduce information in an organism they do not build up. See http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin It really is in my opinion the best argument for creation and the best refuter of evolution. Evolution needs to increase complexity over time through mutations, yet all observation shows the opposite. Take the example above of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic-resistant H. pylori have a mutation that results in the loss of information to produce an enzyme. This enzyme normally converts an antibiotic to a poison, which causes death. But when the antibiotics are applied to the mutant H. pylori, these bacteria can live while the normal bacteria are killed. So by natural selection the ones that lost information survive and pass this trait along to their offspring. This process cannot exspalin the origin of the enzyme.

“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome . This surly shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory evolution demands.”
-L.spetner not by chance 1997

Some mutations are beneficial such as the above, or a insect on a island that has a mutation so it does not produce wings, know lives while the others that did not have the mutation die off, so know this insect with the new mutation lives and passes on its genes till the whole island is know mutated wingless insects. Yet this is the wrong kind of change for evolution [reduced destroying] yer constant with biblical creation.



Biblical Creation and Global Flood


If a worldwide flood occurred, what would we expect to see? Billions of dead plants and animals laid down rapidly by water fossilized all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead plants and animals laid down rapidly by water fossilized all over the earth. Rapid burial of billions of dead plants and animals over long distances is just what would be expected in a worldwide flood. It is universally accepted that sedimentary rock was laid down by moving water. so the material making up strata had to first been eroded from one place and transported by water and deposited in another. This is exactly what you would aspect in a global flood. In the17th and 18th century it was generally accepted a universal flood produced the worlds rock layers and fossils. flood conditions are perfect for for forming fossils. No one would argue that the entire earths surface has not been at some time underwater. Marine fossils are found throughout the whole geological column, showing that ocean waters were over continents throughout whole column formation. fossils must be buried fast to be preserved. compared to modern flash floods if there was a year long global flood the amount of sediment fits almost perfectly in gemological column. For light reading on the major evidences for a global flood see here

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/geologic-evidences-for-the-genesis-flood/

A great video on flood evidences
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Rock-Strata-Fossils-and-the-Flood,5631,229.aspx

Books on the global flood
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Earths-Catastrophic-Past,6438,226.aspx
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/The-Flood,6211,229.aspx
https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/global-flood/
https://usstore.creation.com/how-noahs-flood-shaped-our-earth
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/


Evolutionist fulfill a profacy of the bible by rejecting the global flood by claiming Unitarianism. The present is key to the past and slow gradual Unitarianism is how modern geologist often interpret the rock record, “all things continue as they were from the beginning.”

“knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.”
- 2nd peter 3 3-7



Biblical Creation and the Age of the Earth

See op.

[total relism]

Some Creation Predictions

“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations “ -enzyme expert Dr matti Leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature


The Fossil Record

Next post.

I would Predict That the World and Living Things Would Appear Designed

“biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
-Richard Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. London: WW Norton & Company, 1.

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
-Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.


When we view design in a automobile or a computer or even an arrowhead we conclude there must be a designer. Yet when we view biological features such as the human cell that is far beyond the complexity of a computer or car. And when we see design in “nature” we reject the obvious because of its theological implications and our commitment to materialism and naturalism.

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011


Complexity of Life

“If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimetre across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.
-Feringa, B. L. 2000. Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408 (6809): 151-154.


DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were , how many and when.Some functions of cellular machines.DNA maintenance robots that proofread information, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice in corrections, and rewind the strands . Intracellular elevators. Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports. Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states. Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion. Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor. A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks see [A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Real engines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2 Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.]

“there is enough information in the cell to store the encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it three or 4 times over”
-Richard Dawkins the blind watchmaker p115 1986

Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3 × 1024 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. Biological machines can store, repair, transmit, decode and translate information. Each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over.

“if all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin!”
-Walt Brown In the beginning


Biovision harvard
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/

protein being made
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pXtceGbjLI

Two free quick videos on complexity
http://creation.com/DNA-repair-enzyme
free 4 part video of the complexity of the human reproduction systems
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made
the hearing ear
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/hearing-ear/hearing-ear
the seeing eye
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/seeing-eye/seeing-eye



Animals Would produce After Their own Kind

Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.
-Genesis 1.24

I will predict that animals reproduce after there own kind. In Genesis it says that animals reproduce after there own kind. One kind will not evolve into another kind. And since Creation was finished after day 6, I will predict
no new organs, no new genes, Enzymes, biological systems and no new information will ever evolve that was not already present in the biosphere. I would also predict the creator would create organisms with a great amount of variety to adapt to changing environments, but that the changes are limited and come from only what was finished on day 6.


The Fall of man Decay of the Genome Information and Mutations


20939

Creation and evolution are perfect beliefs to compare because they are opposite of each other. Evolution says originally incomplete, simple and evolving ever upwards to greater complexity. Creation says originally perfect, complex, and since the fall, a downward trend and falling apart. So creationist would say mutations destroy the original creation and say mutations will not lead to an increase in information. So creation says any change that happens will be downhill or variation and this is all we have ever observed.

“dna is “letters and instructions manual” on how to assemble organisms "genes spell out the information required to build proteins"
-Jonathan k Pritchard p42 oct 2010 scientific American professor of human genetics at the university of Chicago


All organism contain information without information there is no life. Evolution has failed to provide a mechanism to originate information. Information and all the biological change we observe [losing information not gaining] is constant with creation. In fact wherever information is observed, in all life examples, language, computer codes, DNA etc It was started by intelligence, intelligence with a purpose. Nowhere do we ever see information arise from any source other than intelligence with a purpose. Information is contained within our DNA, so it had to have a intelligence with a purpose to originate that information.

‘biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry … (and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.’
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.

“A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) ... . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.
-Werner Gitt Ph.D. head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology Director and Professor at PTB


[B]Worldwide Flood

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every man”
-Genesis 7 19-21


If a worldwide global flood actually happened, what would we expect to see? Would we not predict billions of dead plants and animals laid down rapidly by water all over the earth? what do we find? Billions of dead plants and animals laid down rapidly by water all over the earth. Wouldn't we expect to see thousands of feet of water deposited sedimentation? Sea creatures buried on top of mountain ranges all over the earth “all the high hills under heaven” land creatures buried with sea creatures in watery catastrophic burial graveyards?


https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/
https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/rock-strata-fossils-and-flood/?sku=30-9-219

I would also predict since all mankind are descendants of those on the ark, there would be flood legends worldwide about a global flood. I would also predict this lineage and bottleneck would show in our genetics.

https://usstore.creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-the-3-daughters-of-noah-dvd
http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics


Origin of Life- Life Comes From Intelligence


Since god created the world and created life to reproduce after itself. Than life comes from life and originated with intelligence. Evolution claims life evolved from lifeless unintelligent matter. The scientific law of biogenesis states “life can only come from other life.” Evolutionist must reject this universal law of nature and believe in spontaneous generation disproved hundreds of years ago. If some intelligent scientist someday get together and create life, that just proves it takes intelligence to create life, it will not happen in nature.


Non Material

I would predict there would be non material things like logic, memory, laws of nature, morality, information, intelligence, morality all would be constant with creation and a non material creator. How does a atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic worldview es plain the origin of non material things listed above.


The creation of the universe must be non material, if it were material, it would be subject to decay like all matter. So the creator must be nonmaterial, spiritual, and eternal see psalm 90.2.


There Would be no Dating Methods that Scientifically Prove the Earth is Older Than 10,000 years and there would be false assumptions of flaws with any Method that Claims an age Older than 10,000 Years. I Predict There Would be Evidence the World Cannot be That old

http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa
http://creation.com/qa#Geology
http://www.icr.org/evidence-recent
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/


Irreducible complexity


Many organisms and biological systems simply could not have evolved by a step by step process but must have been created fully functional. For example, Protein machines are needed to read DNA, but the protein machines themselves are codded for in the DNA. Or the heart, kidney and lung all work together, without any one of them the others could not survive. enzymes controlled dna systems replication-dna controlled rna systems transcription-rna controlled protein sythesis translation. How do things like immune system digestive system evolve?


“development genetic toolkit” according to evolution this toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all phyla, before first appearance of phyla, prior to Cambrian explosion, prior to muticulular life. The gens that control body plans had to originate, when there were no bodies to control embryonic development.Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plans—and these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the various phyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the ‘Developmental Genetic Toolkit’. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phyla—in other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian— prior to the origin of multicellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos.
“At the point when the modern animal body plans first emerged [half a billion years ago] just about all the genes that are used in modern organisms to make embryos were already there. They had evolved in the single-celled world but they weren’t doing embryogenesis [Mazur’s braces]” (Stuart Newman, p. 52).Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot ‘look ahead’ and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the ‘tools’ for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization.Stuart Newman’s paper, which “served as the centerpiece of the Altenberg symposium” (Mazur, p. 12), claims that all 35 or so animal phyla physically self-organized by the time of the Cambrian explosion, and selection followed later as a ‘stabilizer’ of the self-organized novelties.
“Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321).
-A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010


There are many things like the bacteria flagelum that has 40 parts that would not work together unless all are there from beginning.
http://www.google.com/search?q=bacteria+flagelum&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=YTGVULOoI_O40gHByIDYDw&ved=0CCIQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=835

“ heart and placenta. A pregnant woman’s placenta secretes progesterone, a hormone that signals her tiny baby’s cells to take up less cholesterol. Cholesterol is a vital component of all body cells, including heart cells, and the placenta regulates cholesterol levels. Thus, the healthy development of a baby’s heart depends on the mother’s placenta. Likewise, the placental cells would fail to manufacture progesterone or perform their other vital tasks without a blood supply, which the mother’s heart generates. Thus, the placenta and heart function interdependently to knit a baby.So, which came first? The heart could not have come first since it would not have formed without the placenta. But if the placenta came first, it could not have worked without a heart. Both organs had to arise simultaneously, pointing toward a sudden miracle!”
http://www.icr.org/article/7692/


sexual reproduction needs complete complementary reproductive organs, but evolution is not goal orientated or able to plan ahead, how could all the complex organs develop over thousands of generations when the organism cannot produce without them? And suppose to happen in same place and time?

Complexity of reproductive system
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made

symbiotic relationships as well fit with creation predictions, showing intelligence and design.


Fully-Developed Organs

All species appear fully developed, not partly developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes arteries, veins, intestines, etc, or any of the vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.


I will predict that man all over throw out all time will have sense of a creator and worship something greater than themselves.

You have to convince yourself creation is not true later in life. People are born to know the obvious, this planet was designed.

“Psychologists have been surprised to find that children believe in a creator God regardless of whether they are exposed to religious faith. They reported that children in Britain and Japan gave similar answers when asked who created various natural objects. The children had abstract notions of a Creator despite not having been influenced by concepts of God from organized religions. As the Oxford University psychologist leading the study reports, her Japanese research assistants were surprised at the children’s responses, given that ‘We Japanese don’t think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’
Religion Today, <http://www.religiontoday.com/Archive/NewsSummary/>, November 2, 1999
http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed ]with hilarious video of evolutionary determination.

children see the world as purposeful and designed[
new scientist 201 [2694] 30-33 2009

children believe in a creator god
creation 22 [2] 2000

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, a massive new study of cultures all around the world suggests."We tend to see purpose in the world," Oxford University professor Roger Trigg said Thursday. "We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can't see istudies around the world came up with similar findings, including widespread belief in some kind of afterlife and an instinctive tendency to suggest that natural phenomena happen for a purpose. Children in particular found it very easy to think in religious ways," such as believing in God's omniscience[, said Trigg
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/12/religious-belief-is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/

Moral sense in humans
built in U of n.carolina Joshua knob philosophy

“By elementary-school age, children start to invoke an ultimate God-like designer to explain the complexity of the world around them—even children brought up as atheists.”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304311204579505574046805070
“Creationism—and belief in God—is bred in the bone”
(p. 112). Bloom, P. 2005. Is God an accident? The Atlantic Monthly, December 2005, pp. 105–112.

“ A growing body of evidence suggest that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life, you can see glimpses of moral thought moral judgment and moral feelings even in the first year of life.”
“some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone”[
babies know the difference between good and evil at six months study revels www.dailymail.couk
9 may 2010


Science makes sense in a Biblical Worldview

"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are inter-dependent."
-W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’ C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought,thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught me a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly, how do we know our eyes, ears, and brain memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world. Or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ] Science would be impossible unless our memories was giving accurate info and our senses our eyes ears etc also laws of logic are needed. How does matter produce a organism with memory? regularity in time space-uniformity is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions astronomy depends on this almost entirely. The universe is understandable we assume the universe is logical orderly and it obeys mathematical laws that is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will. Evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. The only reason i believe in creation is because the chemicals in my brain make me. science need us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.

But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable lab experiments etc.That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place.
Why should i believe that one accident our brains can properly understand another accident the big bang? how can matter acted on by mutation only for a survival advantage produce laws of logic? this is illogical matter cannot do this matter cannot produce nonmaterial things this is against science and against logic. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.

morality

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."
-Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133

“The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion”
-Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality#_ednref3

Most everyone would agree with one of the following. The murder of innocents is wrong, the enslavement of people because of their race is wrong, or the mistreatment of animals is morally wrong. Everyone has some issue they believe to be a moral violation and “wrong” or that it should not be done. However morallity is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “wrong” Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as murder or slavery is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains. I could just as easily say murder is good [weed out unwanted reduce population for nature etc] And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that the others are wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right. As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe. So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions. In fact an evolutionist only feel ,murder, rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder, rape, sexism are good. there is no way to know if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad. Our ideas of right and wrong, under this system, are merely artifacts of some chemical processes that occur in the brain, which happened to confer survival advantage on our alleged ape-like ancestors. But the motions in Hitler’s brain obeyed the same chemical laws as those in Mother Teresa’s, so on what grounds are the latter’s actions ‘better’ than the former’s?

"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

Also, why should the terrorist attack slaying thousands of people in New York be more terrible than a frog killing thousands of flies? As one student who stabbed to death his teacher said

““I know it’s uncivilised but I know it’s incredibly instinctual and human. Past generations of life, killing is a route of survival.“It’s kill or be killed. I did not have a choice. It was kill her or suicide.“
-Rayner, G., Boy, 16, winked at fellow student before stabbing teacher Ann Maguire to death as she tried to flee, telegraph.co.uk, 3 November 2014.


“Evolutionist Jaron Lanier showed the problem, saying, “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
In reply, Dawkins affirmed, “‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”

William Provine, a prominent American atheist evolutionist and professor at Cornell University, put it this way:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear. . . There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.


Genesis is the Only True Account of Creation

Genesis 1:1
1:1 created. No other cosmogony, whether in ancient paganism or modern naturalism, even mentions the absolute origin of the universe. All begin with the space/time/matter universe, already existing in a primeval state of chaos, then attempt to speculate how it might have “evolved” into its present form. Modern evolutionism begins with elementary particles of matter evolving out of nothing in a “big bang” and then developing through natural forces into complex systems. Pagan pantheism also begins with elementary matter in various forms evolving into complex systems by the forces of nature personified as different gods and goddesses. But, very significantly, the concept of the special creation of the universe of space and time itself is found nowhere in all religion or philosophy, ancient or modern, except here in Genesis 1:1.

Appropriately, therefore, this verse records the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”), the Tri-universe, the space/time/matter continuum which constitutes our physical cosmos. The Creator of this tri-universe is the triune God, Elohim, the uni-plural Old Testament name for the divine “Godhead,” a name which is plural in form (with its Hebrew “im” ending) but commonly singular in meaning.
The existence of a transcendent Creator and the necessity of a primeval special creation of the universe is confirmed by the most basic principles of nature discovered by scientists:
(1) The law of causality, that no effect can be greater than its cause, is basic in all scientific investigation and human experience. A universe comprising an array of intelligible and complex effects, including living systems and conscious personalities, is itself proof of an intelligent, complex, living, conscious Person as its Cause;
(2) The laws of thermodynamics are the most universal and best-proved generalizations of science, applicable to every process and system of any kind, the First Law stating that no matter/energy is now being created or destroyed, and the Second Law stating that all existing matter/energy is proceeding irreversibly toward ultimate equilibrium and cessation of all processes. Since this eventual death of the universe has not yet occurred and since it will occur in time, if these processes continue, the Second Law proves that time (and, therefore, the space/matter/time universe) had a beginning. The universe must have been created, but the First Law precludes the possibility of its self-creation. The only resolution of the dilemma posed by the First and Second Laws is that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The so-called big bang theory of the origin of the cosmos, postulating a primeval explosion of the space/mass/time continuum at the start, beginning with a state of nothingness and then rapidly expanding into the present complex universe, contradicts both these basic laws
-Henry M. Morris is Director of the Institute for Creation Research, as well as the Academic Vice-President of Christian Heritage College. He received his Ph.D. in hydraulics, with minors in geology and mathematics

[total relism]

and my last subject the fossil record.


The Fossil Record


“Evolutionist see what they want to see, they see a past they believe has happened, and that desire drives their vision.”
-Randy Guliazza P.E M.D the imaginary Piltdown man

Artistic License

“Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.”
-Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific AmericanHYPERLINK "http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf"'HYPERLINK "http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf"s Nonsense

“There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to advertisements for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape—stocky, jutting jaw, hunched in the knuckle-walking position. On the right, a man—graceful, high forehead, striding purposefully into the future. Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans, as the shoulders start to pull back, the torso slims down, the arms retract, the legs extend, the cranium expands and the chin recedes. Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”
-Wood, B., Who are we? New Scientist 176(2366):44–47, 26 October 2002

Why is it evolutionist think that dead organisms can do something “long ago” and “far away” that the same organisms cannot do today? Which is reproduce something other than its kind. In part because most of what is presented as missing links is just artistic license. Artists are told to draw the creature from the perspective of evolution and how old the fossils are said to be, thus how far along in the evolutionary process they are. Most fossils are really only fragments of the original animal a piece of jaw or tooth and can be interpreted various ways and disagreements over even what species they are occur. Than they draw pictures of what they believe it may have looked like in this evolutionary process to try to convince you of evolution, Allot of imagination and interpretation go into these finds and drawings. Here is the missing link “European man”

20940

“Imaginative action stories, art, and computer animations must be employed to “sell” evolution to the public.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017

Lucy is a well known claimed missing link [more on lucy later]. She is also a very complete fossil 40%compared to most usally 10% or less. Yet even with Lucy there are many forms and ways she has been presented by evolutionist.


2094120942
20943

The above shows the actual fossils found . With enough interpretation you can make fossils appear as you wish them to. In the book The greatest hoax on earth by Jonathan Safarti he talked of any interview with a fossil artists. Who says they draw a picture of what they are told to make the fossil look like, than the drawings are sent back to make more ape like, more human, or whatever is desired, until the picture matches what the evolutionist wanted. So when ever you see a picture in a textbook as proof of a missing link, ignore it and first see the actual fossils to see if the evidence matches the story told about them, what they want you to believe the fossils say.

“fossils are fickle, bones will sing any song you want to hear”
-Shreeve j arguments over a woman discover 11[8] 58 1990

“In science, “seeing is believing” but in evolution, “believing is seeing.” It takes a lot of believing to see an evolutionary thread through the scattered, shattered fossil fragments that serve as a basis for so many different “just so” stories and illustrative paintings.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record 2017

In fact they dont even need fossils

“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
-Charles Darwin


Nebraska man

20944

Nebraska man was used to support evolution as a missing link It was presented in the museums and textbooks, shown in pictures in newspapers, as a missing link. They had enough fossil evidence that they could tell what environment Nebraska man lived in, what his wife and kids looked like, and what they ate. It was examined by leading authorities from 26 institutions across Europe and the US and classified as a missing link. The fossils remains were estimated to be around 10 million years old. Later it was found out the only actual evidence found was 1 tooth.


20945

As Creationist Duane Gish said, science is truly an amazing thing when they get that much information from one tooth. Not only that, it was a tooth of a pig. Here is the real Nebraska man

20946

This shows how much imagination goes along with these finds and that they see what they want to see. How many believed in evolution because of this “missing link” over the decades.


Piltdown man


2094720948

“Darwin's theory is proved true”
-NY Times sep 22 1912

“How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. -Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.

Piltdown man was in the textbooks and museums as proof of evolution for over 40 years it was seen as the fossil evidence for evolution. Hundreds of peer reviewed research papers were written on the fossil and information was factually given about how they died, their language and parenting. Tax money was used to build a monument and national sanctuary at the site of the find for this “most important evidence for evolution.” Claimed to be between 100,000 and 500,000 years old as newspapers around the world sold it to the public as proof of evolution.

“Researchers shaped reality to their hearts desire.”
-Blinderman The Piltdown Inquest

“Many scientist were so elated by the discovery that they uncritically accepted the sloppy forgery”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds, and forgeries


Later it was found to be a human skull with an apes jaw chiseled down to fit and stained to look old actually only a few hundred years old. Many scientist were involved with the forgeries including sir Arthur Smith Woodward director of the natural history museum in London who was given many awards and honors for the find. The job was even done horribly, scratch marks were left teeth artificially ground down in one case the pulp cavity was worn down and had to be filled with sand. The teeth were angular instead or rounded, flattened at different angels and standard store bought paint was used on the canine tooth.

“How easily susceptible researchers can be manipulated into believing that they have actually found just what they had been looking for.”
-biology philosopher Jane Maienschein Maienschein, J. 1997. The One and the Many: Epistemological Reflections on the Modern Human Origins Debates. Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research. Clark, G. A. and C. M. Willermet, eds. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 413.

“Self deception....scientist may exhibit irrational bias or give allegiance to their lies with only the most tenuous basis in fact...because it fell with preconceived wishes.”
-Eiseley L Fossil and Human evolution 1966


Pithecanthropus Erectus Java Man

2094920950
portrayal vs actual fossils


Java man was the primary evidence used in the scopes trial as proof of evolution. It was used as an example for decades as proof of evolution and a missing link..Less than 1% of the complete human skeleton was found.

“Tantalizingly incomplete, and for most scientist it was inadequate as confirmation of Darwin's view of human evolution.”
-Boule M and Vallois H.V Fossil men a textbook of human paleontology


The founder of the fossil Eugene Dubois went looking for missing links packing up his family to travel in search to prove evolution. Dubois thought that finding missing link “would be the greatest scientific discovery ever.”

“Dubois had a powerful motivation to find this missing link- to disprove theism because he know believed “There is no truth in religion” and he was drawn to prove evolution with an almost religious fervor”
-Milner the encyclopedia of Evolution and Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds, and forgeries


The fossils were not found together as one unit but were scattered about. The fossils were not found by Dubois but by an untrained convict labors.

“The finds were made under circumstances that would later haunt the entire endeavor and threatened to ruin Dubois reputation.”
-Regal Human Evolution


After his original claims of finding a missing link [he had no training as a paleontologist] when he returned he hid the bones for 25 years after criticism from the scientific community arose, he was

“Willingly blind to opposing evidence”
-Steven J Gould Men of the thirty-third division

Dubois later changed his mind and said his fossil was of a Gibbon [see E Dubois on the fossil human skulls recently discovered in java]. One of the molars was actually found 25 miles away and likely not part of java man. The Femur and Molar [other] are that of a humans.

“Weather or not these bones belong to the same individuals, if they do not, we have remains of two or three individuals.”
-J Mccabe the story of evolution

The Skull cap has been argued and debated but appears to be that of a human variant like neanderthals. Harvard paleontologist Dan lieberman studied a more complete skull of a java man and said

“It is the first H Erectus find with a reasonable complete cranial base and it looks modern.”
-Java skull offers new view of homo erectus Science 299 [5611] 1293 2003

The fossils were originally dated by Dubois at 7-10 million years to fit the missing link time line. Today they are said to be 250,000-500,000 years old. And they are

“Considered an early human species, not a missing link between ape and man...Dubois spent most of his life trying to press a wrong conclusion.”
-Milner the encyclopedia of evolution


“The homo erectus type appears to be one of the many variants of humans that have existed in history and still exists today.”
-Tattersall I Devson E and Couvering encyclopedia on human evolution and pre history



Pithecanthropus Alaus


20951

Ernst Haekel the “great German apostle of Darwinism” believed in a mythical land known as Lemaria where apes evolved into man as there were no fossils transitions on our continents, thus there must have been a land where they did evolve on. This land of course was know sunken [like Atlantis] into the sea. A 1962 biology textbook described the half man half monkey fossils as “Short, squat creatures.”

“Who could doubt the exsistance of that contented looking burger family?
-Richards R.J Ernst haeckel the tragic sense of Life

This all of course shows the power of photos on a uneducated public that allows evolutionist to indoctrinate as the creatures never existed.

“Pictures are easily grasped and, to the uninformed, can be very convincing evidence of evolution”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries


Archaeoraptor

209522095320954

National geographic the biggest promoter of evolution worldwide promoted Archaeoraptor as a missing link to prove the dinosaur to bird connection they push. However it was a fraudulent fossil that combined the body of a birdlike creature with a tail from a different dinosaur. After much pressure the magazine gave a small retraction in a later edition.

“Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery from China. The “feathered dinosaur” specimen that they recently unveiled to much fanfare apparently combines the tail of a dinosaur with the body of a bird, they say. “It’s the craziest thing I’ve ever been involved with in my career,”
-Philip J. Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Alberta Monastersky, R. 2000. All mixed up over birds and dinosaurs. Science News. 157 (3): 38.

Another fraud in the bird to dinosaur link is the fossil Confuciusornis. In fact frauds are common.

“Archeroptor is just the tip of the iceberg, there are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field.”
-Discover magazine A Feducia


Frauds are common in museums and specifically China where it has been estimated that 80% of marine reptile fossils are fake.



Neanderthals What They Don't Tell you



2095520956
Early depiction vs newer depiction based m on fossils and genetics


“we have, for far too long, considered the Neanderthals to have been so different from us” [and that the idea that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans] “must surely now be removed from text books”
-Clive Finlayson Neanderthal expert

“The existence of Neandertals has been used as a club to beat creationists since the first Neandertal skeleton was discovered in the 1800s. Generations have been raised to believe in the half-ape, half-man, primitive cave man called Neandertal. This is no longer believed by the evolutionary establishment”
-Dr Rob Carter PHD geneticists

Evolutionist are finally saying what creationist have been saying for decades, Neanderthals are human. Liberal evolutionist Scientific Americaan July 2010 in an article titled “our inner neanderthal” shows humans and neanderthals interbreed showing them human they have even been found buried together. Neanderthals used makeup and jewelry, they buried there dead and put flowers around the dead. They played music [the Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 1996 (p. 9).] They used tools, cooked and recycled. performed surgery. The average brain size was larger than a modern humans. DNA of Neanderthals was tested and showed they were within the human range and closer to the norm than Australian Aborigines.

“In the February issue of the Bulletin International of the Academy of Sciences of Cracow, Mr K. Stolyhwo described the discovery of a human skull with classic Neanderthal features. The entire skeleton was in a tomb which also contained iron arrowheads and a suit of chain-mail armour.”
-Nature, 77:587 (1908)—as referenced in the Sourcebook series by William Corliss.

“European burial sites clearly show that Neandertals and modern-looking humans intermarried. They both had elaborate burials―in a few cases, they were buried together―and modern human remains with Neandertal characteristics have been found”
-Walker, M. et. al. 2008. Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 12, 2008. Duarte, C. et al. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7604-7609.

“We have been using these techniques to look at how Neanderthals were making and using the tools they left at La Cotte....Neanderthals were travelling to Jersey already equipped with good quality flint tools, then reworking them, very, very carefully so as not to waste anything. They were extremely good at recycling.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434


“Because the jawbone appears to contain a mixture of features (called a "morphological mosaic" by the authors), it looks as though Neandertals intermarried with anatomically modern people.”
-Liu, W. et al. Human remains from Zhirendong, South China, and modern human emergence in East Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print October 25, 2010.

But "a new study shows they cooked and ate veggies." An examination of fossilized Neandertal remains from Belgium and Iraq revealed that their teeth contained starch granules from grain. Amanda Henry, lead author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, told CNN, "Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors."7
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29/ne … tml?hpt=C2

So, evidence shows that ancient humans performed surgery
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s … 000810.ece

“[W]e must reclassify Homo neanderthalensis as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of Homo sapiens,”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … l-brethren


“The full sequencing of Neanderthal DNA showed it was at least 99.7% like that of living humans.”
RANDY J. GULIUZZA, P.E., M.D. Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced. National Institutes of Health News. Posted on genome.gov May 5, 2010, accessed October 27, 2016.

"Our findings show that their sinuses were no larger, relative to the skull size, than in Homo sapiens who lived in temperate climates.The view that Neanderthals were knuckle-dragging cave men who scraped a living by hunting large mammals on the frozen wastes of the tundra has been around since they were first discovered because they were known to live at a time when Europe was in the grip of the last Glacial Age.As a result a lot of their physical traits have been attributed as adaptations that helped them live in the cold, even when it doesn't make any sense.”
-Dr Todd Rae, an evolutionary anthropologist at Roehampton University in London
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie … finds.html

2 chimps of same species today vary in DNA similarity more so than, neanderthals do to humans
answers mag p 58 April-june 2012
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -different

“next time you call someone a Neanderthal, better look in a mirror.”
-How much Neanderthal DNA do you have? Lots. Associated Press. Posted on foxnews.com January 29, 2014, accessed October 28, 2016.

“yet another indication that they weren't dimwitted brutes as often portrayed,”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 152917.htm

“Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors.”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29/ne … tml?hpt=C2

some fossils were fraudulent as they moved the law out of socket to look more primitive
http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Alive-Startling-Truth-Neanderthal/dp/0890512388

neanderthals used makeup jewelery
answers mag vol 5 no3 2010

they buried there dead and put flowers around the dead.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/neanderthal.asp

armored neanderthal
in the February issue of the Bulletin International of the Academy of Sciences of Cracow, Mr K. Stolyhwo described the discovery of a human skull with classic Neanderthal features. The entire skeleton was in a tomb which also contained iron arrowheads and a suit of chain-mail armour.
Nature, 77:587 (1908)—as referenced in the Sourcebook series by William Corliss.

They played music
Neanderthal flute?the Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 1996 (p. 9).

European burial sites clearly show that Neandertals and modern-looking humans intermarried. They both had elaborate burials―in a few cases, they were buried together―and modern human remains with Neandertal characteristics have been found.1
Walker, M. et. al. 2008. Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 12, 2008.
Duarte, C. et al. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7604-7609.

“Neanderthals were travelling to Jersey already equipped with good quality flint tools, then reworking them, very, very carefully so as not to waste anything. They were extremely good at recycling.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434

"The genetic difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans.Man's ancestors mated with Neanderthals and other related hominids during human evolution, according to a new study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8861602/Siberians-share-DNA-with-extinct-human-species.html


The new report, published in the journal PLoS ONE, further confirms the fact that Neandertals could and did interbreed with people deemed to be modern humans
http://www.icr.org/article/7107/
Sanchez-Quinto, F. et al. 2012. North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neandertals. PLoS ONE. 7 (10): e47765.

2 chimps of same species today vary in dna similarity more so than, neanderthals do to humans
anwsers mag p 58 april-june 2012
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/cavemen-different

"had a sophisticated knowledge of their natural surroundings which included the ability to select and use certain plants “By using these methods in conjunction with the extraction and analysis of plant microfossils, we have found chemical evidence consistent with wood-fire smoke, a range of cooked starchy foods, two plants known today for their medicinal qualities, and bitumen or oil shale entrapped within the dental calculus. Yet within the same calculus, chemical evidence for lipids/proteins from meat was low to absent.
Hardy, K. et al. 2012. Neanderthal medics? Evidence for food, cooking, and medicinal plants entrapped in dental calculus.Naturwissenschaften. 99 (8) :617–626.

Neanderthal Genome Shows Early Human Interbreeding, Inbreeding
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218133658.htm

“Recent genome reports show that the Neandertals are essentially fully human, causing scientists to reclassify them as "archaic humans."
- Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University


Neanderthal cave paintings
http://creation.com/neandertal-paintings-bombshell

neanderthals could speak like modern humans
Neanderthals could speak like modern humans, study suggests BBC.com 20 dec 2013
DNA Proof That Neandertals Are Just Humans
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/article/8006/

German anthropologist Reiner Von Zieten who found skull fragments in Hamburg called “one of archaeology's most sensational finds” by the British guardian and a “vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals” career has “know ended in disgrace after the reevaluation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age remains.” “an entire traache of the history of man's development will have to be reworked.” Over his 30 year career some of the fossils he used were fake fossils, others were a few hundred years old that he claimed were as old as Neanderthals. He was unable to use the radiometric dating equipment he claimed he used to date fossils with and was only found out when he tried to sell his universities fossil collection to a U.S Museum.

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/19/science.sciencenews




Lucy


2095720958
Actual Fossil of Lucy- Lucy's human foot in a museum depiction though no fossils were found to support the presentation


“The sacrum and the auricular region of the ilium are shattered into numerous small fragments, such that the original form is difficult to elucidate. Hence it is not surprising that the reconstructions by Lovejoy and Schmid show marked differences “
-Häusler, M. and P. Schmid. 1995. Comparison of the Pelves of Sts 14 and AL288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines. Journal of Human Evolution. 29 (4): 363-383.

“Lucy, a fossil that was once widely promoted as a hypothetical human ancestor, had shoulder sockets that faced upward, a common feature of modern apes. The Selam fossil has the same type of sockets. This unique feature enables apes to dexterously climb and swing from tree branches. In contrast, humans have downward facing shoulder sockets at birth that gradually develop to face forward as they become adults. This position is also integral to the uniquely human walking gait. Also in contrast to humans, ape shoulder morphology does not change during development. The authors wrote in Science, "Many of these traits change significantly throughout modern human ontogeny [development from an embryo], but remain stable in apes. Thus, the similarity of juvenile and adult fossil morphologies implies that A. afarensis development was apelike."
-Green, D. J. and Z. Alemseged. 2012. Australopithecus afarensis Scapular Ontogeny, Function, and the Role of Climbing in Human Evolution. Science. 338 (6106): 514-517

Lucy was possibly named after the drug LSD, Lucy In the sky with diamonds from the famous Beatles song. What is known as Lucy is a chimp, not a missing link. Korea has recently took Lucy out of the textbooks for being outdated and false. In a October 11 1994 episode of Nova you can actually see on camera evolutionist reshape Lucy' pelvis to make it allow for her to walk upright as the evolutionist “believe” the fossils should be. Lucy was a chimp, she was 3'6 with a weight of typical chimps. She had a V shaped jaw. The nearby laetoli tracks were identical to modern humans. Lucy's toe bone was separated by several hundred feet 10 miles away and a hundred thousands years [according to evolutionist see The Greatest Hoax on earth p156-157] Her skull,nose, knee joint, hand bones, all clearly show she was a chimp made for swinging in trees and walking on all fours. She may have been able to at times walk partially upright, such as a modern pygmy chimp that would not make her more human than any a pygmy chimp.


“More importantly, the evidence from CATscans of the fossil skulls (which show the orientation of the organ of balance) indicates that they did not walk habitually upright in the human manner”
-Spoor, F., Wood, B. and Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369(6482):645–648, 1994

“Their limb bones were highly suited to life in the trees, not the open savannah, as textbooks depict. Curved hand and foot bones, long arms and more indicate this”
-Stern, J., and Susman, R., American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60(3):279–317, 1983


“Lucy’s kin have also been shown to have had a locking wrist mechanism typical of knuckle-walkers”
-Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404:382, 2000

“… the Australopithecines still seemed to have climbing adaptations—so, the hand bones are still quite strongly curved and their arms suggest they’re still spending time in the trees.”
-Chris Stringer from the London Natural History Museum

“Charles Oxnard He has been Professor of Human Anatomy at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and is still Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Australia. The approach uses a computerized technique known as multivariate analysis that tries to remove the subjective element from anatomical comparisons. The total anatomical coordinates of the three groups—modern apes, modern people, and australopithecines—were plotted in a 3-D morphometric space, as it’s called. Evolutionary expectations for the results were clear. People would be expected to cluster in a blob around one position in this space, apes around another, and australopiths somewhere in-between. That’s not what Oxnard’s team found at all. They concluded that this was a unique group of extinct primates with an anatomy that, overall, was further from apes and people than those two groups were from each other
-Oxnard, C.E., The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt? Nature 258:389–395, 1975.


“The discovery of Lucy-like remains dated as more recent than those of the supposed first humans ruled out Lucy as a "prehuman" candidate”
-Walker, J., R. A. Cliff, and A. G. Latham. 2006. U-Pb Isotopic Age of the StW 573 Hominid from Sterkfontein, South Africa. Science. 314 (5805): 1592-1594.

“A.Anamemsis and A africanesis the latter represented by the famous skelton known as Lucy- had wrists capable of locking the hands in place during kunckle walking”
-Science news April 8 2000 Lucy on the ground with knuckles Richmond and starit Nature march 23

“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978

“The knee has engendered major questions related to its inclusion with the rest of Lucy. It had been found the previous years at a different location from the rest Lucy's bones.”
-John Morris and frank Sherwin the fossil Record

The recent discovery that human tool marks were found on bones dated to the Lucy era means that human and Lucy-like remains might be expected to be found together if they shared a common habitat
http://www.icr.org/article/human-tool-marks-found-from-lucy-era/

Stone tolls were being used at same time as lucy,3.5 mya
-the first butchers p21 oct 2010 scientific American

“Lucy, a fossil that was once widely promoted as a hypothetical human ancestor, had shoulder sockets that faced upward, a common feature of modern apes. The Selam fossil has the same type of sockets. This unique feature enables apes to dexterously climb and swing from tree branches. In contrast, humans have downward facing shoulder sockets at birth that gradually develop to face forward as they become adults. This position is also integral to the uniquely human walking gait. Also in contrast to humans, ape shoulder morphology does not change during development. The authors wrote in Science, "Many of these traits change significantly throughout modern human ontogeny [development from an embryo], but remain stable in apes. Thus, the similarity of juvenile and adult fossil morphologies implies that A. afarensis development was apelike."
-Green, D. J. and Z. Alemseged. 2012. Australopithecus afarensis Scapular Ontogeny, Function, and the Role of Climbing in Human Evolution. Science. 338 (6106): 514-517


“Lucy’s fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp.”
Zihlman, A. 1984. Pygmy chimps, people, and the pundits. New Scientist. 104 (1430): 39-40.
“When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes”
-Leakey, R. and R. Lewin. 1992. Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human. New York: Anchor Books, 193-94


“The australopithecines…are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism [walking on two legs], possibly from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in the direct human lineage. All of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications.”
-Oxnard, C. E. 1983. The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 332.




Evolution of the Horse


2095920960


“from a small three-toed animal “the size of a fox” through larger animals with progressively larger hooves, de­veloped from the middle toe. Darwin thought Marsh’s sequence from little Eohippus (“Dawn horse”) to modern Equus was the best evolutionary demonstration anyone had produced in the 15 years since the Origin of Species (1859) was published
(Mil­ner, 1990, p. 220). - Milner, Richard. 1990. The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity’s Search for Its Origins. Facts on File, New York, NY.

"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."
-World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things." -Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

Once seen as perhaps the best fossil evidence for evolution the horse series has since been refuted by evolutionist. The series being made up by Othinal c marsh in 1874 he made the order from fossils all around the world and not in the right order of strata, but in the order he thought they transformed. In south america the horses are found in opposite order . They are also found together

“Fossil horses of all the varieties so called evolutionary “stages” are found I the strata intervals. In life, they were contemporaries....they could not have been an ancestor/descendant relationship...fossils of the three toed grazer Neohipparian have know been found with Pliopippus in the great basin area, Pliohippus has been found with three toed Hipparion.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil record 2017

The Tulsa zoo in 2000 removed there horse exhibit because a petition went around to get rid of it for being false, it went on local news announcing the zoo is teaching a lie, the next day it was removed. It is true that some of these fossils show variation within the horse kind [family] but that is not upward evolutionary change. There is great diversity within the horse kind and that is represented in the fossil record.

20961


1- Different animals in each series. In that exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses").
2 - Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

3- Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs, the next creature has 19, there is a jump to 15, and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modem horse.
4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth between these two basic types.
5 - Not from in-order strata. The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)
6 - Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern Hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts which cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."
-H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194195.


"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all but a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."
*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

7 - No two bone exhibits alike. There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

8 - Horse series exists only in museums. A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.
9 - Each one distinct from others. There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."
*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

10 - Bottom found at the top. Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensis and Equus accidentalis.
11- Gaps below as well as above.Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.
12 - Recent ones below earlier ones. In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.
13 - Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.
14 - Heavily keyed to size. The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size, and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20076910/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/16/
15 - Bones an inadequate basis. In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together

“Any fossils can be placed in a line and a evolutionary story can be told about the transformation of one into another and a different story could be told if the fossils were arranged in a different order”
-Dr John Morris Geologist


Evolutionist Admit the Truth About the Horse Series

"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of reserach it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series"
-Prof. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWE Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1954, pp. 551-552)-


‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’ – Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA

“many examples commonly cited such as the evolution of the horse family or the sabertooth tigers can be readily shown to have been falsified”
-G.G Simpson scientific monthly oct 1950 p264

“enshrined in every biology text­book and in a famous exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. It showed a sequence of mounted skeletons, each one larger and with a more well-developed hoof than the last.The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment.” -Milner, Richard. 1990. The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity’s Search for Its Origins. Facts on File, New York, NY.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses.. As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely dear, an exhibit of horses as an example. . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."
*Garrett Hardin, Nature anal Man's Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)


“The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be.”
-Prof. T. S. Wescott, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science

“at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."
*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.


"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where 'in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.' "
*G.A. KerlaA, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.

“Science gained a victory when South Korea's Ministry of Education, Science and Technology announced last month that textbook publishers will correct editions that contain misinformation regarding evolution. The push for the corrections is being led by the Society for Textbook Revise. Nature reported that the revisions will remove "examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx."
Park, S. B. 2012. South Korea surrenders to creationist demands. Nature. 486 (7401).


ARCHAEOPTERYX


20962 20963
fossil remains and Alan Feduccia world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist reconstruction


“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
-Feduccia, A.; cited in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764–6 5 February 1993

“Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.3 Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.[ Science 259(5096):790–793, 5 February 1993 ]”
-Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist


Archaeopteryx is often presented as proof of evolution and a perfect missing link. However as time has passed confidence has waned and contradictory evidence has emerged, and most would agree with creationist who have said all along, Archaeopteryx is a bird.

"It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula."
- Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.

“By any current definition it is a modern bird, with a complete wing and fully modern feathers. It also has a perching foot and robust wishbone, just right for a flying bird...bony sternum where the ribs meet in front, which is needed as an anchor for the powerful muscles required for flight, however, few reptiles ha ribs that even could cover the front.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record

Some of its skeletal features are in common with reptiles, but so does every bird and mammal today. In Eichstätt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is dated as older than its supposed ancestor. And fully modern flying birds have been found much older than Archaeopteryx. S.Korea recently finally took Archaeopteryxout of school textbooks for being fraud/out of date claim.

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." * -J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas [Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677]. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils." -Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46.

“the avian feathers of the skull demon strait that archaeopteryx is a bird rather than a feathered non-avian archeosaur”
-march 1996 the journal of paleontology

“An Archaeopteryx bird fossil from Solnhofen, Germany, was recently analyzed using new techniques that detect element ratios without destroying the material. The results indirectly, but certainly, identified original feather and bone proteins. It had the same biochemistry that comprises today’s feathers.”
-Bergmann, U. et al. 2010. Archaeopteryx feathers and bone chemistry fully revealed via synchrotron
imaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (20): 9060-9065.


From Science vs Evolution By Vance Ferrell
http://evolutionfacts.com/sci-ev-PDF/sci_vs_ev_PDF.htm

-claws on wings- 12 modern birds today have wings
-teeth- some birds have teeth some don't, some fish do, some don',t some mammals do some don't
-how could scales turn into feathers?
-had bones like a bird-thin hollow bones wing and leg bones
-Archaeopteryx does not predate birds its found in same layer and later than birds found in china older than -Archaeopteryx fully formed modern birds
- it has modern bird feathers

"But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." A. Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 1020

-no intermediate feathers ever found transition from scales to feathers would require many intermediates steps but none have been found
- well devolved wings
- wings designed for flight the feathers of Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical the way feathers of flying birds are designed

"The significance of asymmetrical features is that they indicate the capability of flying; nonflying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings."
- *E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature (1979), p.

- Digits on its wings:Archaeopteryx had three digits on its "wings." Other dinosaurs have this also, but so do a few modern birds. This includes the hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird, which has two wing claws in its juvenile stage. In addition, it is a poor flyer, with an amazingly small sternumsuch as Archaeopteryx had. The touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and the adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on each wing. Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.
-The shape of its skull. It has been said that the skull of Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird, but investigation by Benton says it is shaped more like a bird.

"It has been claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the 'London' specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton to state that 'Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird.' "
-Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-3.

"Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: 'A vertebrate with feathers.' Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death-knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form."
-Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine Debate, " in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.

Ornithologist agrees. *F.E. Beddard, in his important scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx was a bird, and, as such, it presented the same problem as all other birds: how could it have evolved from reptiles since there is such a big gap (the wing and feather gap) between the two.

"So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains." * -F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p.. 160.

-Other birds had teeth. It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds which also had them.

"However, other extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)." -P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1970), p. 196-197.

- Could be a unique bird. Archaeopteryx could well be a unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is unique. The Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head similar to a lizard, but with teeth. There are a number of unique plants and animals in the world which, in several ways, are totally unlike anything else.The platypus is an animal with a bill like a duck; has fur but lays eggs; in spite of is egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk; chews its food with plates instead of with teeth; the male has a hollow claw on its hind foot that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has claws like a mole, but like a duck it has webs between its toes; it uses sonar underwater.There is no doubt but that the platypus is far stranger than the Archaeopteryx, yet, like the Archaeopteryx, there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other species.
Totally unique. Regarding the Archaeopteryx, Romer, the well-known paleontologist said this:

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of is presumed theoodont ancestry nor of its relation to later 'proper' birds than before." * A.S Romer, Notes end Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

From his own study, *Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the sues through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved -W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), P. 1.

"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Araliaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stapes have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." *L du Nay, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

[AE Bravo]

Seek help.

[total relism]

Evolution of the Whale


209642096520966
Pakicetus Original presentation based on scant fossils and imagination/ later actual fossils found/ modern evolutionist depiction


The evolution of the whale is said by some to be the best fossil evidence for evolution. However Pakicetus [shown above] needed for the whole chain was imagined from a few pieces of jaw bone and skull. It said nothing of its supposed aquatic tail. The original Nature paper said Pakicetus was “no more amphibious than a tapir.” it was found buried with other land mammals. It was only imagined by the evolutionist belief system to be an ancestor of whales. When future fossils in 2001 were found it was shown to be clearly a land based animal. “newly discovered fossils show that the first whales [Pakicetus] were fully terrestrial and were even efficient runners.” [de Muizon, C. 2001. Walking with whales. Nature. 413 (6853): 259.]

“called “the first cetacean” in an effort to salvage the evolution story...Pakicetus was not a whale, and students should not be deceive or intimidated into considering it so.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record


Basilosaurus

20967


Basilosaurus was clearly a fully aquatic animal and not missing link. It was actually 10 times as long as Ambulocetus at 70 feet though depicted as the same size as to make the missing link case more plausible to the readers. The claimed “leg” [was not has to do with reproduction] was not attached to the fossil but was found nearby and might not belong to the animal.

“The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales...shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its relatives: in conjunction with the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the nasal bones have been reduced and carried upwards and the premaxillary and maxillary elements have expanded to the rear to cover the original braincase roof ”
-Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out:

“These “hip bones” are not attached to the backbone of any whale, dolphins, or any of the fossils. Claims beyond the realm of human detection are mystical”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Whales and Evolution Joined at the hip



Ambulocetus


20968
A) Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming’, by Thewissen et al.
(B) The stippled bones were all that were found. And the bones coloured red were found 5 m above the rest. With the ‘additions’ removed there really isn’t much left of Ambulocetus!

Ambulocetus as for a claimed ancestor to modern whales is based on imagination and beliefs, not evidence. In the following short clip interviews with discoverer Dr Hans Thewissen he admits The ‘whaleness’ of Ambulocetus is largely based on the claim that the ear-bone called the tympanic is like a whale’s. Dr Hans Thewissen admits that this is questionable. Dr Hans Thewissen admits that the fossils of Ambulocetus do not include the part of the skull with a blowhole, although museums show Ambulocetus with a blowhole. That is, it is imaginary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uccden3r98A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4gmeI9TFKA


A creationist critique of Ambulocetus is given here.

A whale of a tale?
https://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale


Rodhocetus

20969

The paleontologist who discovered Rodhocetus, Dr Gingerich, that there was no fossil skeletal evidence for a tail or flippers, Dr Gingerich admitted that this was so. He also admitted that he now thought that the creature had neither of these critical whale features.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N--Xtcr8h7k



Tiktaalik


20970


Tiktaalik has mixed features [think platypus] not in between features see greatest hoax on earth. It has no legs, no fingers or toes, the libms are not connected to the vertebral column. It is a fish with gills, scales, fins and lived in water.

“Tiktaalik's pelvic fin is present as nothing but a fin.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

In fact many evolutionist no longer consider it a missing link but an evolutionary dead end.

Tetrapods from Poland trample the Tiktaalik school of evolution
https://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-footprints-trample-tiktaalik

Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?
https://answersingenesis.org/missing-links/is-tiktaalik-evolutions-greatest-missing-link/



The Fossil Record Creation or Evolution?


“The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago andmore." — *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."
—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.


If Evolution were true there would be no disputing it in the fossil record. There should be chains of gradual evolution to major changes over time. There should be an abundance of transitional forms for all major phylum of animals in the rock record. Instead what we find is a half dozen fossils that are disputed by evolutionist and variation within the various kinds of animal groups [creation prediction]. You could take all the skeletons of dog varieties and place them in a order better than any line evolutionist have. They should be able to do this with many animals just given the variety within the kind [see horse] its amazing they have so few. No missing link seems to last very long, the ones used in Darwin's time have been refuted, scopes trial, 30 years ago because contrary evidence disproves them.

Below you will find evolutionist themselves admitting the fossil record does not support evolution. These are leading pathologist who have spent their life studying the fossil record, all admitting what is clear, the fossil record does not support evolution. You will also notice them supporting the creationist predictions of the fossil record, distinct major categories of animals that appear abrupt, distinct, fully formed, followed be lesser categories with variations within the kinds [usually family levels].


"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed." —*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
-Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

“in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
-Davis Raup education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
-*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."
—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.” -Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History

"Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."
—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils” -Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—
Dr. David Raup,

"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—* -Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.

‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
-Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

“ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?
-Ernst Mayr 2001

“but it it gets worse. Stephen Jay Gould noted that the fossil sequence shows the most disparate (most different) biological designs tend to show up first! Followed by the slightly less-disparate designs.Followed by the still less different designs. Until, lastly, the last slight bits of interspecies biological diversity are filled-in at the very end of the process. The general trend in the fossil sequence is: the various phyla show up first, later various Linnaean classes are filled in, and still later various Linnaean orders are filled in … and so forth. Gould called this pattern ‘disparity precedes diversity’. And evolutionists cannot blame this sequence on an ‘incomplete fossil record’, as they often try to do.That contradicts the expectations of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which expects slow change that, over time, will gradually accumulate to large differences. In short, Darwinism expects the most disparate designs to show up last, not first. This is contradicted by the fossil record. (To be honest, to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies the Darwinism.) Something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”.
-A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010 reviewed by Walter J. ReMine

“the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” -Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated: Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November

“If the transitional forms had been found, they would be paraded for all to see. Creation evolution discussions would be welcomed in the since classrooms, rather than current censorship of any criticism directed against evolution”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

“... there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.”
- Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—* George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.


"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint." —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
-Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.


"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
— *G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.


"When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."
—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100


"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

“An evolutionary overprint laid on the fossils holds power only if the alternative is concealed.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2-17

“All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil records at approximately at the same time...... why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms”.
-Gerald T Todd.American Zoologist, Vol 24 (4) 1980 Page 757.

“There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world”.
-Gordon Rattray Taylor.The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Row, New York, 1983.

“Although this transition doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no known fossil record of these stages”.
-Dr. Kriag Adler.Encyclopaedia of Reptiles & Amphibians, George, Allen & Unwin, London, 1986, Page 4.

“Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptillian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles”.
-Robert L. Carroll.Problems of the Origin of Reptiles, Biological Review of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, July 1969, Page 393.

“The reptiles arose from amphibians of some kind, but the details of their early are not clearly understood and current ideas about them are in a state of flux”.
-Angus d'A. Bellairs.Reference. 8 Page 60.

“The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to to bird was achieved”.
-W. E. Swinton.Biology & Comparative Anatomy of Birds, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1, 1960, Page 1.

“Feathers are unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers”.
-A. Feduccia.The beginning of Birds, The Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany, 1985, Page 76.

“The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most two lineages, is still an enigma”.
-Roger Lewin. Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out, 'Science' Vol 212, 1981,Page 1492.

“Nor is there any fossil evidence of any consequence about their (the supposedly "primitive" monotremes) ancestors. So we have virtually nothing to link these creatures to any group of fossil reptiles”.
-David Attenborough. Life on Earth, Fontana/Collins, Glasgow, 1979, Page 207.

“All fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats, and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestors”.
-John E. Hill and James D. Smith. Bats: A Natural History, British Museum of Natural History, 1984, Page 33.

“Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats”.
-Richard Leakey. Footnote in the Illustrated Origin of Species, abridged by R. Leakey, Faber & Faber Ltd, 1979, Page 128.

“Modern apes...have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter”.
-Lyall Watson. The Water People, Science Digest - May 1982, Page 44.

“It is very likely that no fossil humanoid yet found is on
the direct line of descendant to modern humans”.
-JS Jones. A Thousand and One Eves, Nature Vol 345 1990 p395-396.

“There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil records provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution”.
-Dr. Michael Denton. Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, 1985, Page 172.

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” -Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.

“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.”
-Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
fossils

“Reptile life on earth has been complicated by....large gaps in the fossil record.”
Hickman, Roberts, and Larson 1997 quoted in the fossil record by John Morris and Frank Sherwin

". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."
—---Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979

“There is no gradualism in the fossil record. “
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst Discover, April 2011, pp. 66–71.


I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory"- heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted”.
Sean Pitman, M.D.,HYPERLINK "http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-thoughtsonEvo-96"Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals
-Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:


"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule . . The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated."
—*Newsweek, November 3, 1980

"The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more." — *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/459/

“The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. The essence of the new Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micro-mutations through natural selection of favored variants. "If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossils have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth’s history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution." —-Duane T. Gish, "The Origin of Mammals" in Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 76.

“The origin of animals with a backbone remains a mystery”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

“The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one of another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous fishes...the origin of all these fishes is obscure.”
-B Stahl 1985 Vertebrate History Problems in Evolution Dover Publications NY

“All these subdivisons of the bony fishes appear in the fossil record at approximate the same time.....how did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely?...and why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?
-G.T Todd 1980 Evolution of the Lung and the origin of Bony Fishes Americsan Zoology 26 [4] 757

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," in Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"
—*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.


"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"
—*Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.


“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978


"At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism [walking on two legs], and despite nearly a century of research on existing fossils and comparative anatomy, there is still no consensus concerning the mode of locomotion that preceded bipedalism."
-Richmond, B. G. and D. S. Strait. 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature. 404 (6776): 382-385. Quoted in Sherwin, F. 2006. Walking the Walk. Acts & Facts. 35 (11).


“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution”
-Stanley Macroevoultion san fransico ca 1977


"Most of the species of maidenhair are extinct; indeed they served as index fossils for their strata until one was found alive." "The youngest fossil coelacanth is about sixty million years old. Since one was rediscovered off Madagascar, they are no longer claimed as ‘index fossils’—fossils which tell you that all other fossils in that layer are the same ripe old age."
—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 186, 198.

“Darwins worst fears have been realized.”
-John Morris The Fossil Record 2017

“But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever,”
-Wong, K. 2012. First of Our Kind. Scientific American. 306 (4): 30-39

“Theorigin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
-Wood, B. 2011. Did early Homo migrate “out of” or “in to” Africa?
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (26): 10375


“Modern apes...have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter”.
-Lyall Watson.The Water People, Science Digest - May 1982, Page 44.

“It is very likely that no fossil humanoid yet found is on the direct line of descendant to modern humans”.
-JS Jones.A Thousand and One Eves, Nature Vol 345 1990 p395-396.

“The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
-Wood, B., Did early Homo migrate “out of ” or “in to” Africa?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 2011; published ahead of print 15 June 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1107724108

“The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism.”
S.M Stanley 1981 the new evolutionary timetable NY Baker Books



CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION


“ It know appears that this Cambrian explosion during which nearly all the extinct animal phyla have emerged lasted only 6-10 million years...And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
-Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), p. 229.

“all of the known animal bodies plans seem to have appeared in the Cambrian” -Rudolf raff evolutionary biologist 2009

‘Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox’. That was how a Scientific American article described an evolutionary problem concerning the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’
-J. Levinton, ‘The Big Bang of Animal Evolution’, Scientific American, November 1992, pp.52–59

"all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors".
Dr Carl weiland MD

In what is called the Cambrian explosion were many vastly different and complex phylum appear abrupt with no evolutionary traces. Darwin said about the Cambrian explosion “I can give no satisfactory answer.” If all life on earth were a clock than in just the last 2 min of the hour all major body plans arise just as they are today. The “exposition” lasted only 20 million years

“Cambrian period of only 20mya”
-Richard Dawkins the greatest show on earth

The youngest layer, according to evolutionist, has all the major groups of phylum in it [estimated 100 only 30 alive today], With no evidence of them evolving from anything else.

“to be honest , to most people not emotionally invested in the matter it falsifies Darwinism, something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”
-Walter remine p 26 JOC 2012 26 [1]

"The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits."
—*Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56

"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form
[I]
"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint." —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” -Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

“Witch gave rise to corals? The sponges? The arthropods” each invertebrate type stands apart from the others, each is complex, each is fully fit for its environment...what has happened in nature to force so many innovations at the same time, and from what did they descend?, truly, Darwin's tree of life does not match reality.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record 2017


vertibrets have been found in Cambrian layers
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-241 pp 60

trilobite had the most complex eye ever.
Crsq 47 2010 p33 the mystery of trilobite evolution

Jelly fish have been fossilized in Cambrian
the fossil record john morris

[Gilrandir]

I disagree that "religion" is not about proofs but faith.
I believe god wrote the bible [for other reasons such as creation] so when it talks of the son of god walking on water i accept its testimony.


So you have undeniable proofs that Bible was written by God? And that there is hell and paradise? And that first a man was created and then a woman (and not vice versa)? If so, out with them.



Do not think that we say that these things are only to be received by faith, but also that they are to be asserted by reason.


Reason tells me humans can't walk on water nor turn water into wine. So it is either one believes one's reason or has faith.



their are those who saw Jesus and what he did that say he did. You can reject their testimony as unreliable if you chose.


There are billions of people who see every day how the Sun moves about the Earth. Now does it?

There are people who saw David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China and Uri Geller bend spoons by looking at them. We might as well think that Jesus was an illusionist. That is if we believe those who saw his miracles (described ONLY in the book written by his father, as you claim).


I never said science was wrong. Science cannot be wrong.


...said inquisitors putting more brushwood under Giordano Bruno's feet.



I said evolutions assumptions and beliefs about the past can lead them to be millions of "years" [not really years is the whole point] wrong. For dozens of examples in peer reviewed evolutionist literature, see my op.


How about counting creationists' (= Bible) wrong datings? You still didn't answer my question: do you support the creation tenet that the Universe is younger that 10 000 years?



?Christians should not be scientist? all major branches of science were started by Christians.


Who then denied almost all creationist tenets. Like this geocentric world model approved by the church which severely punished the dissidents who denied it.

[total relism]

So you have undeniable proofs that Bible was written by God? And that there is hell and paradise? And that first a man was created and then a woman (and not vice versa)? If so, out with them.



Reason tells me humans can't walk on water nor turn water into wine. So it is either one believes one's reason or has faith.



There are billions of people who see every day how the Sun moves about the Earth. Now does it?

There are people who saw David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China and Uri Geller bend spoons by looking at them. We might as well think that Jesus was an illusionist. That is if we believe those who saw his miracles (described ONLY in the book written by his father, as you claim).



...said inquisitors putting more brushwood under Giordano Bruno's feet.



How about counting creationists' (= Bible) wrong datings? You still didn't answer my question: do you support the creation tenet that the Universe is younger that 10 000 years?



Who then denied almost all creationist tenets. Like this geocentric world model approved by the church which severely punished the dissidents who denied it.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C. S. Lewis

I have reasons to believe that the bible was authored by him who created the world and who cannot lie. Thus whatever is in that word i believe because of him who wrote it. I have given many of those reasons on this thread. Feel free to have a look.


Agreed. Thus Jesus was not human.



Yes Jesus was just an illusionist. Illusionist do indeed die and do not come back from death. You do have trouble staying on topic. This thread is know on anything related to creation vs evolution, lets stick with that for know please.


The Truth About the Inquisitions
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153448-The-Truth-About-the-Inquisitions




Yes 10,000 year earth. I have said so if one would read nearly any single one of my posts.




“Why do myths persist despite the exsistance of authentic scholarship that refutes them? because avowed enemies of the church find them useful in discrediting the church and limiting its influence in the world.”
-Steve Weidenkopf The real Story of Catholic History Catholic Answers press 2017

“many vicious distortions and lies had entered the historical cannon with the seal of distinguished scholarly approval, so long as they reflect badly on the catholic church.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History Tempelton Press 2016

“Great historical myths die hard....writers continue to spread traditional myths....even though they are fully aware of the new findings. They do so because they are determined to show that religion, and especially Christianity, is a dreadful curse upon humanity.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

Flat earth

“You will read in some book that men of the middle ages thought the earth flat and the stars near, but that is a lie.”
-C.S Lewis Problem of pain

“It is he who sits above the circle of the earth.”
-Isaiah 40.22

"He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing."
-Job 26.7

“Another verse that indicates the spherical nature of our planet is Job 26:10. This verse teaches that God has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness (day and night) is called the “terminator” since the light stops or “terminates” there. Someone standing on the terminator would be experiencing either a sunrise or a sunset; they are going from day to night or from night to day. The terminator is always a circle, because the earth is round."
-The Universe Confirms the Bible Dr Jason Lisle

“The opposition Columbus encountered was not about the shape of the earth, but about the fact that he was wildly wrong about the circumference of the globe...the story [Columbus flat earth] was unknown until more than three hundred years later when it appeared in 1828..the story was eagerly embraced by historians who were so certain of the wickedness and stupidity of the roman catholic church.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History Tempelton Press 2016

“The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.
Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011

This article refutes the idea that early Christians believed the earth was flat.
http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth

According to Rodney Stark in his book Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. All theologians and scholars agreed the earth was round at the time. The myth was invented by a fictional writer Washington Irving and taken as truth by anti catholic historians.

“[I]Neither Christopher Columbus nor his contemporaries thought the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers—even noted historians. Inventing the Flat Earth is Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages, examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe, and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s and then snowballed to outrageous proportions by the late 19th century.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/027595904X
Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991



The famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002)
“There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.
Gould, S.J., The Late Birth of a Flat Earth, in: Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, 1st paperback ed., pp. 38–50, New York: Three Rivers Press, NY,1997

Russell documents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/ AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day
Henderson, T., World-famous astronomers celebrate the Venerable Bede, The Journal, journallive.co.uk, 13 February 2009


“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”


And the leading church theologian of the middle ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), wrote in his greatest work Summa Theologica/Theologiae:
“The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the centre, and so forth.”
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Question 54: The distinction of habits, Article 2, Reply to objection 2



Orbs of medieval rulers
As early as the 5th century, medieval European kings carried a symbol called the globus cruciger, Latin for ‘cross-bearing orb’, as a Christian symbol of royal power. The orb, usually a golden sphere, represented the earth—hang on, a sphere representing a flat earth—something’s wrong here … oh that’s right, it was a spherical earth. It was topped by a cross to symbolise Christ’s lordship over the earth, and held by the ruler to symbolise that he had been entrusted to rule his lands. In medieval portraits, the scale didn’t indicate physical size but importance, hence the large size of the cross.






“”The period of time when Europe was “Christianized” was renamed the dark ages. Enlightenment scholars began a campaign to associate the church with superstition and ignorance, including the outright lie the church in the middle ages taught a flat earth. Jeffery Burton Russel sets the record straight in his book inventing the flat earth myth...it is sad the conquerors write the history books. Over the next century secularist ideas replaced the christian worldview in Europe that continues to this day.”
-Micheal J ord and John K Reed How Noahs flood Shaped our earth



"it has been known for a long time that a major part of the churches intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas"
Giorgio de santillana 1902-1974 philosapher/historian of scince MIT the crime of galalio p 14 U chicago press 1955


galeio said he proved the earth revolved around the sun-not true until 1838 just a theory well accepted by church who ruled it not inconsitant with the bible. Pope urban the 8th gave galeio medals paintings and gold gifts in 1624 church told him to keep investigating to prove the theory but galieo wanted it declared true and proven the church told him to do it private and he went public
hg

[Gilrandir]

I have reasons to believe that the bible was authored by him who created the world and who cannot lie. Thus whatever is in that word i believe because of him who wrote it. I have given many of those reasons on this thread. Feel free to have a look.

Someone here said about religion based on proofs. "I beleive" isn't a proof. Thus you corroborate my statement about proof vs faith.



Agreed. Thus Jesus was not human.

My bad. Let me rephrase my statement:
Reason tells me that anyone heavier than a pond-skater can't walk on water or that a person being no chemist and having no special equipment can't turn water into wine.



Yes Jesus was just an illusionist. Illusionist do indeed die and do not come back from death.

IIRC only a limited number of people (just apostles) saw him after death looking unnatural (shining brightly). Might have been a trick of a high class illusionist as well.



You do have trouble staying on topic. This thread is know on anything related to creation vs evolution, lets stick with that for know please.


I draw examples from Bible to illustrate why I think you are mistaken. The same as you started talking about flat earth which has nothing to do with creation vs evolution.



The Truth About the Inquisitions

What I need to know about inquisition that it took people and IN THE NAME OF GOD tortured them and cruelly executed them for their views (or even alleged views). And described in books (malleus maleficarum) how to do it better.



otal deaths from inquisitions in all of history

slight less than 10,000.
done by church 0
done by state 10,000

compared with the atheistic french revolution that persecuted Catholics over 3 years death totals

Guillotined, 17,000; shot at Toulon, 2000; drowned at Mantes, men, women, and children, 4,800. Then there were the murders by the mob about 10,000 were killed without trial in the province of Anjou alone.

Compare with the 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy murdered in the Spanish Republican Red Terror of 1936 is more than twice the number of the victims of 345 years of inquisition.

Don't you think that those could be viewed as tit for tat (Bible would appreciate the approach)?

Humor aside, what I say: massacres were done both in the name of God and against God. Both are bad irrespective of the numbers. What you say: more Christians/ priests were killed than the heretics by inquisition so the latter doesn't matter. Mathematics vs humanity?

By the way, can we call those 10000 tortured by inquisition martyrs? Or at least Giordano Bruno? Or are martyrs only those who are tortured by others, not the church?



galeio said he proved the earth revolved around the sun-not true until 1838 just a theory well accepted by church who ruled it not inconsitant with the bible. Pope urban the 8th gave galeio medals paintings and gold gifts in 1624 church told him to keep investigating to prove the theory but galieo wanted it declared true and proven the church told him to do it private and he went public


Yes, first you psychologically break a person and publicly humiliate him, then you give him a medal. Stalin worked in the same way.

[Furunculus]

"Is there a geological column? Today we do not form vast sedimentary layers spread across continents"

News to me.

n.b. i actually have a degree in geology. this thread is painful.

[rory_20_uk]

"Is there a geological column? Today we do not form vast sedimentary layers spread across continents"

News to me.

n.b. i actually have a degree in geology. this thread is painful.

As a thought experiment, let's say that the entire Universe was made 134 years ago. Every part of evidence that says otherwise was just planted to throw off calculations.

There's no way of disproving this using the evidence in reality, any more than a character in Minecraft can use things in the game to postulate what is outside.

The Theory of Evolution is a useful tool. There are many more anomalies (fertile hybrids, gene jumping between life forms via mechanisms such as viruses) than the initial theory demonstrated, but it is far more useful than basing things on one's codification of daddy issues.

~:smoking:

[total relism]

"Is there a geological column? Today we do not form vast sedimentary layers spread across continents"

News to me.

n.b. i actually have a degree in geology. this thread is painful.


Their is a difference between the evolutionary " geological column" and what we observe was my point. It is presented in textbooks as this perfect pancake simple organism layers covered by the geological age and so around the world as presented in textbooks. I do agree we have "vast sedimentary layers spread across continents" and what is the best way to understand them?

If a worldwide flood occurred, what would we expect to see? Billions of dead plants and animals laid down rapidly by water fossilized all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead plants and animals laid down rapidly by water fossilized all over the earth. Rapid burial of billions of dead plants and animals over long distances is just what would be expected in a worldwide flood. It is universally accepted that sedimentary rock was laid down by moving water. so the material making up strata had to first been eroded from one place and transported by water and deposited in another. This is exactly what you would aspect in a global flood. In the17th and 18th century it was generally accepted a universal flood produced the worlds rock layers and fossils. flood conditions are perfect for for forming fossils. No one would argue that the entire earths surface has not been at some time underwater. Marine fossils are found throughout the whole geological column, showing that ocean waters were over continents throughout whole column formation. fossils must be buried fast to be preserved. compared to modern flash floods if there was a year long global flood the amount of sediment fits almost perfectly in gemological column. For light reading on the major evidences for a global flood see here

Global Flood Evidence Number 3- Every continent contains layers of sedimentary rocks that span vast areas. Many of these layers can even be traced across continents.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/transcontinental-rock-layers/

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/geologic-evidences-for-the-genesis-flood/

A great video on flood evidences
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Rock-Strata-Fossils-and-the-Flood,5631,229.aspx

Books on the global flood
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Earths-Catastrophic-Past,6438,226.aspx
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/The-Flood,6211,229.aspx
https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/global-flood/
https://usstore.creation.com/how-noahs-flood-shaped-our-earth
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/


Evolutionist fulfill a profacy of the bible by rejecting the global flood by claiming Unitarianism. The present is key to the past and slow gradual Unitarianism is how modern geologist often interpret the rock record, “all things continue as they were from the beginning.”

“knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.”
- 2nd peter 3 3-7




You have a degree in geology? and what of the many phd geologist who i quote and agree with me? what your really saying is you have been indoctrinated past any ability to think for yourself.

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

“Simply put most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution. It is all they have ever been taught. If creation is ever mentioned it is ridiculed and unfairly catheterized, thus, evolution is assumed, not proved and creation is denied, not refuted”
-John Morris The Young earth


“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
- Albert Einstein

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain

[total relism]

As a thought experiment, let's say that the entire Universe was made 134 years ago. Every part of evidence that says otherwise was just planted to throw off calculations.

There's no way of disproving this using the evidence in reality, any more than a character in Minecraft can use things in the game to postulate what is outside.

The Theory of Evolution is a useful tool. There are many more anomalies (fertile hybrids, gene jumping between life forms via mechanisms such as viruses) than the initial theory demonstrated, but it is far more useful than basing things on one's codification of daddy issues.

~:smoking:

Lets try a thought experiment. If evolution were true every part of evidence that says it cannot possibly be as old as claimed must have been planted their. The issues, assumptions and problems with the dating methods that sometimes allow us our faith, must be put their by those evil fundamentalist Christians. The facts that we fail to demonstrate evolution and it contradicts science in many ways should not throw off our false view of reality more than someone who believes minecraft is real. Understanding God's creation is a useful tool, there are still some anomalies than the start of the modern creation movement initially demonstrated, but it is far more useful than basing things on one's codification of daddy issues.




“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally, hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
-Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30

‘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. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
-Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada .

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—
-Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.

“I suppose the reason we why we lept at the orgin of species was that the idea of god interfered with our sexual mores-
-sir julien Huxley

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
-Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff.

"evolution is a anti-scientific fable intended to avoid accountability to god"
-2011 Dr David stone laser physicists with 5 degrees including PHD in mechanical endangering from Michigan state U creation mag 34 [1] 2012

“Evolution can better be understood as the pseudo-scientific justification for a life lived without accountability to ones maker.”
-John D Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017

[total relism]

Someone here said about religion based on proofs. "I beleive" isn't a proof. Thus you corroborate my statement about proof vs faith.


My bad. Let me rephrase my statement:
Reason tells me that anyone heavier than a pond-skater can't walk on water or that a person being no chemist and having no special equipment can't turn water into wine.


IIRC only a limited number of people (just apostles) saw him after death looking unnatural (shining brightly). Might have been a trick of a high class illusionist as well.



I draw examples from Bible to illustrate why I think you are mistaken. The same as you started talking about flat earth which has nothing to do with creation vs evolution.


What I need to know about inquisition that it took people and IN THE NAME OF GOD tortured them and cruelly executed them for their views (or even alleged views). And described in books (malleus maleficarum) how to do it better.


Don't you think that those could be viewed as tit for tat (Bible would appreciate the approach)?

Humor aside, what I say: massacres were done both in the name of God and against God. Both are bad irrespective of the numbers. What you say: more Christians/ priests were killed than the heretics by inquisition so the latter doesn't matter. Mathematics vs humanity?

By the way, can we call those 10000 tortured by inquisition martyrs? Or at least Girsano Bruno? Or are martyrs only those who are tortured by others, not the church?



Yes, first you psychologically break a person and publicly humiliate him, then you give him a medal. Stalin worked in the same way.

Back to what i originally said its a logical belief not a baseless faith. Do you believe you have a brain? you have not seen it but you see the evidence of it.




Agreed fully, thus jesus showed himself he was not merely a man but God in the flesh who can control nature.




Over 500 saw him who were not disciples and apostles. Where is this illusionist body?



Yes all you need to know, thus proving these qoutes correct

“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
-H. L. Menck

“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge



Ahh so you did read it. Allow me to quote a small section you must have accidentally missed.

"And the inquisitors cannot help, they give heretic over to the state. Death penalty from the state often was to burn at the stake. The catholic church never killed anyone, it was against cannon law to do so, they handed them over to the state.

[rory_20_uk]

Lets try a thought experiment. If evolution were true every part of evidence that says it cannot possibly be as old as claimed must have been planted their. The issues, assumptions and problems with the dating methods that sometimes allow us our faith, must be put their by those evil fundamentalist Christians. The facts that we fail to demonstrate evolution and it contradicts science in many ways should not throw off our false view of reality more than someone who believes minecraft is real. Understanding God's creation is a useful tool, there are still some anomalies than the start of the modern creation movement initially demonstrated, but it is far more useful than basing things on one's codification of daddy issues.

Faith isn't based on the physical world. That's fine. God's creation is not understood, it is believed. I enjoy reading a wide range of genres and often they help illustrate the views of the people at the time, be that Greek myths, Dickens or the different versions of the bible.

"Intelligent design" and the like is little more than adding God to the start of the Theory of Evolution. You could equally add it before Quantum Mechanics - God intelligently created the particles. Doesn't really add much beyond doing what the previous ecumenical councils tried to do which is staple together disparate things.

If evolution is wrong this does not mean that something else is right. Aliens is a more plausible explanation: something that pops in from time to time in the sky and punishes or praises according to whims.

~:smoking:

[total relism]

[QUOTE=total relism;2053780002]Lets try a thought experiment. If evolution were true every part of evidence that says it cannot possibly be as old as claimed must have been planted their. The issues, assumptions and problems with the dating methods that sometimes allow us our faith, must be put their by those evil fundamentalist Christians. The facts that we fail to demonstrate evolution and it contradicts science in many ways should not throw off our false view of reality more than someone who believes minecraft is real. Understanding God's creation is a useful tool, there are still some anomalies than the start of the modern creation movement initially demonstrated, but it is far more useful than basing things on one's codification of daddy issues.

Faith isn't based on the physical world. That's fine. God's creation is not understood, it is believed. I enjoy reading a wide range of genres and often they help illustrate the views of the people at the time, be that Greek myths, Dickens or the different versions of the bible.

"Intelligent design" and the like is little more than adding God to the start of the Theory of Evolution. You could equally add it before Quantum Mechanics - God intelligently created the particles. Doesn't really add much beyond doing what the previous ecumenical councils tried to do which is staple together disparate things.

If evolution is wrong this does not mean that something else is right. Aliens is a more plausible explanation: something that pops in from time to time in the sky and punishes or praises according to whims.

~:smoking:

Faith in Evolution isn't based on the physical world. That's fine. evolution is not understood, it is believed. I enjoy reading a wide range of genres and often they help illustrate the views of the people at the time, be that Greek myths, Dickens or the different versions of evolution.

"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science.It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries."
-Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40.

"Intelligent design" and the like is little more than adding God to the start of the Theory of Evolution. You could equally add it before Quantum Mechanics - God intelligently created the particles. Doesn't really add much beyond doing what the previous ecumenical councils tried to do which is staple together disparate things.

Evolution is wrong...Aliens is a more plausible explanation: something that pops in from time to time in the sky and punishes or praises according to whims.

[rory_20_uk]

Evolution is directly based on the physical world. It is extrapolated beyond what is physically seen.
Evolution occurs all the time - in bacteria in a petri dish it can be seen in real-time. Difficult to get Aliens into that.

Hence why there is a meaningful difference between the two approaches.

~:smoking:

[total relism]

Evolution is directly based on the physical world. It is extrapolated beyond what is physically seen.
Evolution occurs all the time - in bacteria in a petri dish it can be seen in real-time. Difficult to get Aliens into that.

Hence why there is a meaningful difference between the two approaches.

~:smoking:

You should quit smoking, its bad for you lol. Under my Responding to Common "Proofs" of Evolution you will find the following [You may also want to read on post 39 Biblical Creation- Natural Selection and Speciation-Biblical Kind- Biblical Creation and Mutations and finally Defining Evolution all on post 39.].


Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”


20974


But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.

20975

H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm

[Gilrandir]

“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
- Albert Einstein

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain

Thus you don't march in rank and file with billions of Christians who (as true Christians) are creationists? :laugh4:


Back to what i originally said its a logical belief not a baseless faith.


"Logical belief" is an oxymoron. Logics deals with mental activity, beliefs - with feelings.

belief
/bɪˈliːf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
"a belief in democratic politics"



Do you believe you have a brain? you have not seen it but you see the evidence of it.


I HAVE seen my brain. Do you happen to know what is MRT? Science has moved a little forward in those 10000 years after the Universe was created.



Over 500 saw him who were not disciples and apostles. Where is this illusionist body?

As I'm totally evil and don't easily take on faith what you say, could you please cite Bible where this or ANY number of spectators who saw Jesus after death is offered.



“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge


How wondrous it is that people never think this quote may refer to themselves, actually.



"And the inquisitors cannot help, they give heretic over to the state. Death penalty from the state often was to burn at the stake. The catholic church never killed anyone, it was against cannon law to do so, they handed them over to the state.

Stalin and Hitler never killed a single person in their lives. Does it make them innocent of millions deaths?

As for handing heretics to the state: I imagine what was the physical condition of those. They were ready to confess anything to put an end to the torture. Like in "1984".

And one more thing in "defense" of the church: was it a strange thing when a state punished a person not for a crime, but for a sin, which isn't the state's responsibility? A sin is a "crime" against CHURCH/RELIGION/FAITH and the state had NO GRIEVANCE against the alleged sinner. Instead of dealing with religious matters itself church absolved itself of all responsibility.

But what I like most is your attempts to whitewash church where you should have just said something like "mea culpa". Or you pass over in silence the charges which you can't address (like Bruno's burning at stake, mallus malleficarum and others). You seem to be more recalcitrant than the church itself - it at least is reasonable enough to admit bad calls it might have had: it apologized for Crusades (which you persist to glorify) and other iniquities, cannonized Joan of Arc (who had been found guilty of heresy) and did things which deserve respect.

[rory_20_uk]

You should quit smoking, its bad for you lol. Under my Responding to Common "Proofs" of Evolution you will find the following [You may also want to read on post 39 Biblical Creation- Natural Selection and Speciation-Biblical Kind- Biblical Creation and Mutations and finally Defining Evolution all on post 39.].


Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”


20974


But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.

20975

H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm

Merely that something can be refuted does not mean that the person who refutes it is correct. That the Catholic church stated that the Earth was the centre of the Universe did not make it true, and merely Catholics agreed did not some how add weight to the "proof". It is merely evidence of an echo chamber of like minded individuals who conflate opinion with fact.

Selecting survivors based on the environment is exactly what natural selection is. This was never supposed to demonstrate how bacteria started, no more than a the absence of God from a Church is not taken that God does not exist.
Evolution is not always increasing complexity.
Resistance has several different mechanisms. Some are gain of information from gene transfer. Others are mutation of existing genes. Which is evolution.
The function genes play depends on where they are - and even have evolved new functions.

What relevance do the beliefs of Alexander Fleming have? If he was Hundu would this "prove" there are in fact several gods?

And to repeat... even if these cherry-picked examples of rather dubious work did "prove" evolution didn't work, that doesn't suddenly mean the answer is God.

~:smoking:

[total relism]

I enjoy our discussions but I have creation vs evolution threads going on 4 different forums. On all of my topics of anyone seem unable to stay on topic. Every topic should be done by itself as every topic deserves. Creation no less deserves its own. So i will not respond unless it is on the topic. As you know i do get to many topics if their is a subject you wish i can do it in the future.







Thus you don't march in rank and file with billions of Christians who (as true Christians) are creationists? :laugh4:



"Logical belief" is an oxymoron. Logics deals with mental activity, beliefs - with feelings.

belief
/bɪˈliːf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
"a belief in democratic politics"



I HAVE seen my brain. Do you happen to know what is MRT? Science has moved a little forward in those 10000 years after the Universe was created.


As I'm totally evil and don't easily take on faith what you say, could you please cite Bible where this or ANY number of spectators who saw Jesus after death is offered.



How wondrous it is that people never think this quote may refer to themselves, actually.



Stalin and Hitler never killed a single person in their lives. Does it make them innocent of millions deaths?

As for handing heretics to the state: I imagine what was the physical condition of those. They were ready to confess anything to put an end to the torture. Like in "1984".

And one more thing in "defense" of the church: was it a strange thing when a state punished a person not for a crime, but for a sin, which isn't the state's responsibility? A sin is a "crime" against CHURCH/RELIGION/FAITH and the state had NO GRIEVANCE against the alleged sinner. Instead of dealing with religious matters itself church absolved itself of all responsibility.

But what I like most is your attempts to whitewash church where you should have just said something like "mea culpa". Or you pass over in silence the charges which you can't address (like Bruno's burning at stake, mallus malleficarum and others). You seem to be more recalcitrant than the church itself - it at least is reasonable enough to admit bad calls it might have had: it apologized for Crusades (which you persist to glorify) and other iniquities, cannonized Joan of Arc (who had been found guilty of heresy) and did things which deserve respect.

No I was raised catholic and through school an evolutionist. They never mentioned creation vs evolution and cant understand why so many young people leave the church, "just preach the gospel" of course this is just what the liberals want.


Belief.

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence belief in the validity of scientific statements



However i was never one for proper English. SO I simply will go back to what i have said from the first.

[I]“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011

to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many [b]infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Acts 1.3

"Do not think that we say that these things are only to be received by faith, but also that they are to be asserted by reason. For indeed it is not safe to commit these things to bare faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason. And therefore he who has received these things fortified by reason, can never lose them; whereas he who receives them without proofs, by an assent to a simple statement of them, can neither keep them safely, nor is certain if they are true; because he who easily believes, also easily yields. But he who has sought reason for those things which he has believed and received, as though bound by chains of reason itself, can never be torn away or separated from those things which he hath believed. And therefore, according as any one is more anxious in demanding a reason, by so much will he be the firmer in preserving his faith."
― Clement of Alexandria




Indeed science has moved forward because of christian men with a christian worldview. And as i showed, science would make no sense if evolution were true, it would not be possible. By the way, do you know who invented Dr Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanner was a creationist.





Here is a list i found online of all the biblical references to who he appeared to including the 500.
http://factsandfaith.com/the-witnesses-who-and-how-many-people-saw-jesus-alive-after-his-crucifixion/




If i was not willing to hear the truth on a matter saying i know all i need to know and refused to be corrected, you could apply it to me as i rightly did to you.




I would rather you read my thread to correct your false analogies/assumptions/history and you can post anything on that thread related.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153448-The-Truth-About-the-Inquisitions



As for the catholic church, I never said it never did wrong, i am not catholic. But just about all your beliefs about the church can be summed up here

[I]“Great historical myths die hard....writers continue to spread traditional myths....even though they are fully aware of the new findings. They do so because they are determined to show that religion, and especially Christianity, is a dreadful curse upon humanity.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

“Why do myths persist despite the exsistance of authentic scholarship that refutes them? because avowed enemies of the church find them useful in discrediting the church and limiting its influence in the world.”
-Steve Weidenkopf The real Story of Catholic History Catholic Answers press 2017

[total relism]

Merely that something can be refuted does not mean that the person who refutes it is correct. That the Catholic church stated that the Earth was the centre of the Universe did not make it true, and merely Catholics agreed did not some how add weight to the "proof". It is merely evidence of an echo chamber of like minded individuals who conflate opinion with fact.

Selecting survivors based on the environment is exactly what natural selection is. This was never supposed to demonstrate how bacteria started, no more than a the absence of God from a Church is not taken that God does not exist.
Evolution is not always increasing complexity.
Resistance has several different mechanisms. Some are gain of information from gene transfer. Others are mutation of existing genes. Which is evolution.
The function genes play depends on where they are - and even have evolved new functions.

What relevance do the beliefs of Alexander Fleming have? If he was Hundu would this "prove" there are in fact several gods?

And to repeat... even if these cherry-picked examples of rather dubious work did "prove" evolution didn't work, that doesn't suddenly mean the answer is God.

~:smoking:


I do not disagree. I already addressed the false claim of the catholic church and flat earth their is so much scholarly work out their to refute it if you wish to know the truth.



Once more I suggest you read up on my material or creation before you object to something you dont know what they believe as everything said, is addressed in my posts.


Biblical Creation- Natural Selection and Speciation


“What Darwin really accounted for was not the origin, but the extermination of species.”
-C.S Lewis

I am a biblical creationist I believe everything was created to reproduce after its own kind, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats etc There is alot of variety in these animals so that a dog, coyote, and wolf have a common ancestor, but it was from the original dog kind, they have know varied and produce the many kinds today. But all the information was already present the variation we see in animals today was already present in the original producing kind.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...tion-evolution
http://creation.com/refuting-evoluti...rsus-evolution
https://creation.com/variation-infor...e-created-kind

2097620977

So in the above picture on the left we see how variation can lead to genetic change in a population. The original created pair of dogs had the genes for both Long [L] and short fur [S]. They produced a variety in their offspring where some received only Long fur genes and some only short fur genes. This is a very basic example of how variation within the kind that eventually leads to speaciation [dog, wolf, coyote] happens. The picture on the right is an example of this. The original dog kid's descendants spreads out over various terrain and those with short fur survive better than those with longer fur in the hotter climate and natural selection favors those with short fur and the long fur die out. In the north the long fur have the advantage and the short fur die out. But all the original information to produce the genes for long fur and short fur are already present in the original biblical kind.

“natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation.... Natural selection only affects changes in the frequency of the variants once they appear; it cannot directly address the reasons for the existence of the variants.”
--Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986

Biblical Kind

21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. ...24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
-Genesis 1

The bible says God created life to reproduce after its own kind. God created various separate distinct kinds [not species] of animals. So a wolf coyote and dog shared a common ancestor. Today we often use the term species for multiple animals within the same biblical kind. For example a camel and a llama can breed. A Lynx and a bobcat, yak and cow, lion and tiger, leopard and jaguar, dingo and dog, coyote and dog, gray wolf and coyote, killer whale and bottle nose dolphin, a zebra and donkey, a zebra and horse and on and on. Because these species all originated from the original biblical kind God created they can still interbreed. They have since diversified but all the potential for change was within the original kind God created.

20978


Defining Evolution

Evolutionist will often point to adaptation, natural selection , survival of the fittest, change in gene frequency and other similar biological changes in organisms as evidence for evolution. Not one of these is rejected by creationist or the bible. Creationist accept and agree with all of the above. If evolutionist maintain evolution is nothing but “change” or natural selection, than me and all other creationist are evolutionist.

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated”
-The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

But we argue those changes dont have anything to do with evolution properly defined. Evolutionist are able to pull a bait and switch by defining evolution two separate ways. Because they control public education and almost all media, they can then give the kids evidence for natural selection, or adaptation, and sell that as “evolution.” they can than on a separate page, define evolution in a completely different way, yet use natural section as evidence for the second definition of witch there is no evidence.

"If evolution is to occur . .living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or alteration of their stored information." —George Gaylord Simpson, "The Non-prevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143, (1964), p. 772.

Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity. Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts. Evolutionist claim to exspalin origins, so origins is what they must be able to show through an evolutionary mechanism.

“From the first cell that coalesced in the primordial soup to the magnificent intricacies of Homo sapiens, the evolution of life—as everyone knows—has been one long drive toward greater complexity. The only trouble with what everyone knows…is that there is no evidence it’s true.”
-Onward and Upward? By Lori Oliwenstein|Tuesday, June 01, 1993 Discover Magazine

"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme, system, or organ."
—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 67-68



Biblical Creation and Mutations



20979

Mutations happen but all observation and experimentation shows they work against evolution. Mutations reduce information in an organism they do not build up. See http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin It really is in my opinion the best argument for creation and the best refuter of evolution. Evolution needs to increase complexity over time through mutations, yet all observation shows the opposite. Take the example above of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic-resistant H. pylori have a mutation that results in the loss of information to produce an enzyme. This enzyme normally converts an antibiotic to a poison, which causes death. But when the antibiotics are applied to the mutant H. pylori, these bacteria can live while the normal bacteria are killed. So by natural selection the ones that lost information survive and pass this trait along to their offspring. This process cannot exspalin the origin of the enzyme.

“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome . This surly shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory evolution demands.”
-L.spetner not by chance 1997

Some mutations are beneficial such as the above, or a insect on a island that has a mutation so it does not produce wings, know lives while the others that did not have the mutation die off, so know this insect with the new mutation lives and passes on its genes till the whole island is know mutated wingless insects. Yet this is the wrong kind of change for evolution [reduced destroying] yer constant with biblical creation.



Mutations/Information

Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity. Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts.

20980


Mutations work against evolution by destroying information. We have done millions of years worth of experiments with fruit fly's and bacteria and noone has ever observed new information being created. We also have all of our observation with living things that show evolution is impossible by mutations. If evolution cannot explain the origin of genetic information than evolution is refuted by observation.


“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory.”
-Spetner, L. 1997. Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of evolution. Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press.

‘biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry … (and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.’
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.

“There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
-DR Werner Gitt head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology

“The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it.” remains a formidable problem.”
- Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p81

"Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."
Spetner, L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.


“the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex over time.”
Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics 2012

“The main mechanism for producing gentic variety required for evolution, random mutation, has been falsified”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and forgeries 2017

[Elmetiacos]

What have all these relgious spam threads got to do with politics?

[total relism]

What have all these relgious spam threads got to do with politics?

Talk with other members of the community about any topic, including civil discussions about politics and religion.

[Gilrandir]

No I was raised catholic [i am not] and through school an evolutionist. They never mentioned creation vs evolution and cant understand why so many young people leave the church, "just preach the gospel" of course this is just what the liberals want.


So? You just changed ranks and files within which you march. But in your defense: everybody of us marches within some rank, only they don't like to admit it.



Belief.

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence belief in the validity of scientific statements

:laugh4:
"truth" and "reality" are not about religion. The latter is about faith. And pay attention to the bolded example.



Indeed science has moved forward because of christian men with a christian worldview. And as i showed, science would make no sense if evolution were true, it would not be possible. By the way, do you know who invented Dr Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanner was a creationist.

So? How can it corroborate your claim that I can't see my brain?





Here is a list i found online of all the biblical references to who he appeared to including the 500.
http://factsandfaith.com/the-witnesses-who-and-how-many-people-saw-jesus-alive-after-his-crucifixion/



Looked through the list. Dicovered that those who saw Jesus after death mentioned by apostles (the eyewitnesses) are in fact apostles themselves + a dozen of women = all in all not exceeding, say twenty/thirty people. The only ones described in the Gospel. All the rest are reported by the self-styled apostle Paul who didn't know Jesus when he was alive. I have an impression that he was a rather scandalous person evicted from many cities.



I would rather you read my thread to correct your false analogies/assumptions/history [its all in their] and you can post anything on that thread related.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153448-The-Truth-About-the-Inquisitions


For you all unpleasant analogies/history are false. :shrug:




As for the catholic church, I never said it never did wrong, i am not catholic.


Nice! First you protect it (namely Crusades), speak about generousity of Popes (Urban VIII and Galilei) and when the position on some invidious issues in untenable you weasel out saying that CATHOLOC church is not your cup of tea.

And speaking of Galilei. All goodwill Urban showed to him and of which you are so enamoured happened BEFORE Galilei displeased Urban with his writings and scientific findings, so Urban actually sanctioned what was done to Galilei years later.






I am a biblical creationist I believe everything was created to reproduce after its own kind, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats etc There is alot of variety in these animals so that a dog, coyote, and wolf have a common ancestor, but it was from the original dog kind, they have know varied and produce the many kinds today. But all the information was already present the variation we see in animals today was already present in the original producing kind.



How come modern animals are not found as old fossils? Why not admit that species can evolve being once created?

[total relism]

So? You just changed ranks and files within which you march. But in your defense: everybody of us marches within some rank, only they don't like to admit it.


:laugh4:
"truth" and "reality" are not about religion. The latter is about faith. And pay attention to the bolded example.


So? How can it corroborate your claim that I can't see my brain?




Looked through the list. Dicovered that those who saw Jesus after death mentioned by apostles (the eyewitnesses) are in fact apostles themselves + a dozen of women = all in all not exceeding, say twenty/thirty people. The only ones described in the Gospel. All the rest are reported by the self-styled apostle Paul who didn't know Jesus when he was alive. I have an impression that he was a rather scandalous person evicted from many cities.



For you all unpleasant analogies/history are false. :shrug:



Nice! First you protect it (namely Crusades), speak about generousity of Popes (Urban VIII and Galilei) and when the position on some invidious issues in untenable you weasel out saying that CATHOLOC church is not your cup of tea.

And speaking of Galilei. All goodwill Urban showed to him and of which you are so enamoured happened BEFORE Galilei displeased Urban with his writings and scientific findings, so Urban actually sanctioned what was done to Galilei years later.





How come modern animals are not found as old fossils? Why not admit that species can evolve being once created?


you could look at it that way. There is nobody i fully agree with or march with. But i see it as others followed a different path [maybe very close] and ended up at the same or similar place. So i think many independent thinking people agree 2 plus 2 is 4.



Right, I believe science is true, therefore evolution cannot be.


or the 500 who saw him.



glad we have that settled.



i defend what is true rather than believe lies of the church and defend what i think is good of the church like the crusades.


Modern animals are found in "young layers" plus your question is based on circular reasoning assuming the layers. See under age of earth and fossils/geological column. Further no many modern "species" would not be found as they have come about recently, but many of the the kinds are found. Their is a certain amount of change that has happened in every kind of animal [not upward complexity change]. See under biblical creation and natural selection, speciation and mutations. 79% of living families have been found so far in column 87.7% of birds 97.7% of living orders of land vertebrates are represented in fossil record 79.1% of living family land vertebrates.

[Gilrandir]

or the 500 who saw him.


A thousand times five hundred saw Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China. Does it make the walk a real event?




Further no many modern "species" would not be found as they have come about recently



So since the Universe is about 7000 years old modern animals are about that age?

[Elmetiacos]

Talk with other members of the community about any topic, including civil discussions about politics and religion.
So it says, my mistake. Some of your posts are of a length approaching spamdom, though.

[total relism]

A thousand times five hundred saw Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China. Does it make the walk a real event?




So since the Universe is about 7000 years old modern animals are about that age?



? no animal is more than 10,000.

[Elmetiacos]

By the way "Malcolm maggeridge" in your sig should be Malcolm_Muggeridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge) and he didn't originate the saying: it's usually attributed to G K Chesterton The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything, but it was probably his biographer Emile Cammaerts who actually originated it.

[total relism]

By the way "Malcolm maggeridge" in your sig should be Malcolm_Muggeridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge) and he didn't originate the saying: it's usually attributed to G K Chesterton The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything, but it was probably his biographer Emile Cammaerts who actually originated it.


Thanks for the correction. Both great men of God.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

? no animal is more than 10,000.

There are days I feel older...

[Fragony]

Reading a fun book 'Sapiens a history of Mankind' by Yuval Noah Hariri, bssicly a summary of just about everything. addresses almost everything talked about here, great for if you want to look smart with minimal effort

[Gilrandir]

So it says, my mistake. Some of your posts are of a length approaching spamdom Old Testament




? no animal is more than 10,000.

I mean species. Even mammoths and dinosaurs?

[total relism]

I mean species. Even mammoths and dinosaurs?

species have developed at various times through history.

[Pannonian]

species have developed at various times through history.

Hang on. Are you admitting to heretical thoughts of evolution?

[total relism]

Hang on. Are you admitting to heretical thoughts of evolution?

It is sad to see what indoctrination can produce.

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017


see post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc

[Pannonian]

It is sad to see what indoctrination can produce.

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

see post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc

Is Abrahamic Creationism the only alternative explanation for the world that we should study though? How much study should there be into the ancient Egyptian belief that the world came (literally) about after the creator Atum fapped it into being? What do John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin think of the Atumic model of creation? Sort of like:

"For six days and nights Atum fapped vigorously, and on the seventh day he came and so we were."
-some punk poster on some internet forum 2017

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1.1

[total relism]

Is Abrahamic Creationism the only alternative explanation for the world that we should study though? How much study should there be into the ancient Egyptian belief that the world came (literally) about after the creator Atum fapped it into being? What do John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin think of the Atumic model of creation? Sort of like:

"For six days and nights Atum fapped vigorously, and on the seventh day he came and so we were."
-some punk poster on some internet forum 2017

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1.1


well of course they should all be studied and tested.

[Elmetiacos]

It is sad to see what indoctrination can produce.

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017


see post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc

Post 39 is absolutely riddled with holes. It's got intellectual woodworm. Where to start?

Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview, we cannot test a monkey evolving into man, complex structures evolving, the big bang, the origin of life or fish turning into amphibians. Nor can we test Noah flood or the creation week. These are both religious worldviews competing for how to understand the world around us in our time. One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe and normal processes. The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, catastrophe both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.
Nobody is arguing that a monkey evolves into a man or that a fish turns into an amphibian. That would be magic.
We can test the "Noah flood" simply by observing and measuring that there isn't enough water in the world for it to have happened, the change in the atmosphere needed to support the stated volume of water in the stated time would have made the air unbreathable and it would have been impossible to gather so many species in such a short time.
Nobody is arguing that the World created itself, creation implies agency and the World is not seen as an agent - unless you are one of the more extreme advocates of the Gaia hypothesis.

This is why creation scientist and evolutionary scientist can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusion. For example there are trillions of dead plant and animals laid down by water fossilized all over the earth that is a fact that is observable. Based on the belief system of the researcher one says look, it must have taken billions of years to create all these fossils, uniformitarnism, slowly over millions of years. One animal fall in a lake and was buried and fossilized than later another was caught in a local flood, than another by a surging river etc evidence for billions of years it had to take that long to create all these fossils what more evidence do you need for millions of years. Than another researcher says wow, look trillions of fossils rapidly laid down by water all over the earth, just what you would expect from a global flood, what more evidence do you need the bible is true. The evidence is the same the conclusion is different based on their worldview.
No, your conclusion is reliant on your world view. When geology was in its infancy, people did not set out to use it to prove the World was very old, this conclusion was drawn from the evidence. In order to reject the conclusion, you must believe that geology is wrong, that geology is pseudoscience, for which of course, you cannot provide any proper evidence.

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated”
Yes, it is.

Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time.
No, they don't and no they don't. It looks like that to you, because you still have a the mediaeval "chain of being" view of living creatures, descending from God from complexity to simplicity. Evolution does not say organisms become "more complex" only that genetic mutation is inherited according to the environment. Most of the rest of the post makes the same mistake.

[Pannonian]

well of course they should all be studied and tested.

Has the Abrahamic model of creation been tested? What was the test, and what were the results? Have they been replicated by other scientists around the world?

[total relism]

Post 39 is absolutely riddled with holes. It's got intellectual woodworm. Where to start?


Thanks for taking the time to read some of my material, most as you can see have not. Finally some discussion on topic.




Nobody is arguing that a monkey evolves into a man or that a fish turns into an amphibian. That would be magic.



Yes my apologies i should clarify, evolution says over millions of years [their magic creator see op] "evolves" a monkey kind type ancestor into a human and "evolves" a fish into an amphibian, just my point in my op.

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."
—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

“time is in fact the hero of the plot...given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait time itself performs mircels”
-George Wald “the origins of life” physics and chemistry of life




We can test the "Noah flood" simply by observing and measuring that there isn't enough water in the world for it to have happened, the change in the atmosphere needed to support the stated volume of water in the stated time would have made the air unbreathable and it would have been impossible to gather so many species in such a short time.
Nobody is arguing that the World created itself, creation implies agency and the World is not seen as an agent - unless you are one of the more extreme advocates of the Gaia hypothesis.


I must admit your test is not the best. If the earth’s surface were even, then there is enough water in the oceans to cover the globe to a depth of about 3 km. So here is the water you seek.

20982

During the flood

"The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them."
-Psalm 104.8

The bile indicates the crust was one big continent before the flood. God gathered the waters together into “one place,” separate from the dry land.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
That is why every creation flood model involved the movement of earths crust in some manner.
-Gen 1 9-10


This is why every major creation flood model involves earths crust movements.



you claimed "it would have been impossible to gather so many species in such a short time. " could you tell me how long god had to send animals to noah? from what distance? and show me how it would not work. I shall than show the faults in your claim.




No, your conclusion is reliant on your world view. When geology was in its infancy, people did not set out to use it to prove the World was very old, this conclusion was drawn from the evidence. In order to reject the conclusion, you must believe that geology is wrong, that geology is pseudoscience, for which of course, you cannot provide any proper evidence.


Nor would I. Geology disproves an old earth. Know geology first switched to uniformtarnism because of Lyell. In 1829, just a few months prior to the publication of the first volume of his Principles of Geology, Lyell wrote, in a letter to fellow old-earth geologist Roderick Murchison:

I trust I shall make my sketch of the progress of geology popular. Old [Rev. John] Fleming is frightened and thinks the age will not stand my anti-Mosaical conclusions and at least that the subject will for a time become unpopular and awkward for the clergy, but I am not afraid. I shall out with the whole but in as conciliatory a manner as possible

Lyell wrote on 14th June 1830 in a letter to George Poulett Scrope:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P .S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.


So not only are evolutionist bias today, so they were at the beginning.


“the idea of a cooly rational scientific observer, completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments doing investigations and coming to dispassionate unbias conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science and indeed most scientist as a simplistic myth”
-professor John Lennox, fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university


“The stereotype of a rational and objective scientific method and individual scientist as logical and interchangeable robots is self-serving mythology”
- evolutionist Stepehn j Gould in the mind of the beholder natural history 103 feb 1994

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” -Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer. See refutation of his Washington Post article attacking creation.






Yes, it is.
[B



Dont wait for me support the claim logically and scientifically.



No, they don't and no they don't. It looks like that to you, because you still have a the mediaeval "chain of being" view of living creatures, descending from God from complexity to simplicity. Evolution does not say organisms become "more complex" only that genetic mutation is inherited according to the environment. Most of the rest of the post makes the same mistake.

well if that is all that is meant by evolutionist, than I am one. This thread only applies to those who believe similar to Darwin, that all life shares a common ancestor and evolution explains the diversity of all life.

[total relism]

Has the Abrahamic model of creation been tested? What was the test, and what were the results? Have they been replicated by other scientists around the world?

see op for various ways it has been tested. I give post numbers for various topics.

[Elmetiacos]

In the end then, your "argument" boils down to "IT'S MAGIC".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In the end then, your "argument" boils down to "IT'S MAGIC".

Nature of argumentation. ALL arguments boil down to their 'givens.' If you don't accept those, you won't consider the argument valid no matter how well supported.

[total relism]

In the end then, your "argument" boils down to "IT'S MAGIC".

Yeah I have tried to get the evolutionist to support their position but really they must resort to magic and miracles. Ask for evidence and it is always hid millions of years in the past.

“time is in fact the hero of the plot...given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait time itself performs mircels”
-George Wald “the origins of life” physics and chemistry of life

[Pannonian]

Yeah I have tried to get the evolutionist to support their position but really they must resort to magic and miracles. Ask for evidence and it is always hid millions of years in the past.


Penicillin was introduced for mass use in time for the invasion of France in June 1944. Lots of diseases are now not treatable by that strain of penicillin.


see op for various ways it has been tested. I give post numbers for various topics.

Can you give one clear example as I've done above?

[total relism]

Penicillin was introduced for mass use in time for the invasion of France in June 1944. Lots of diseases are now not treatable by that strain of penicillin.



Can you give one clear example as I've done above?



How is this a test of evolution? if you read my post 23

Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”

20983


But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.

20984

H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm


bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin

"conclusive proof these genes predate medical antibiotics"
-ancient resistance to antibiotics found new scientist 211 [2828] 13 sep 2011




I chose not to give such a poor examples for creation, but I do give some predictions see post post 40.

[Pannonian]

How is this a test of evolution? if you read my post 23

Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”

But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.

H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm


bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin

"conclusive proof these genes predate medical antibiotics"
-ancient resistance to antibiotics found new scientist 211 [2828] 13 sep 2011

I chose not to give such a poor examples for creation, but I do give some predictions see post post 40.

You wot? You lost me at the beginning with the talk of gains and losses, then my brain was comprehensively scrambled with your hunter in a trap analogy, then my jaw dropped beyond retrieval when you posted those proof links from creationresearch.org. I audibly gasped in disbelief when you stated that antibody-resistant genes were found 30k years prior to penicillin, as "conclusive proof". The point is so far missed that I can't believe anyone could post the above with any sincerity, yet you evidently have.

[Gilrandir]

species have developed at various times through history.

So dinosaurs and mammoths have succeded in developing and getting extinct in 7000 years?
And why 7000 years? According to the Jewish calendar it is under 5800. Do you mean the universe is that old?



bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were [B]found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin


I'm afraid you can't operate any dates which go beyond the 5800.

[Elmetiacos]

How is this a test of evolution? if you read my post 23

Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution” formation that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.
Gngngngng! Evolution is not about transmission of information! Why are you obsessed with this false concept?


This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution...
In the first place, no it wasn't and in the second place, so what? That's like saying you can't believe the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square on the other two sides without also believing the souls of the dead can inhabit beans.

[total relism]

So dinosaurs and mammoths have succeded in developing and getting extinct in 7000 years?
And why 7000 years? According to the Jewish calendar it is under 5800. Do you mean the universe is that old?



I'm afraid you can't operate any dates which go beyond the 5800.


Yes, and I the age would be a debate on chronology not something i care to much for. I go with 10,000 as that is usually the max age given by conservative scholars. If you want arguments for those chronologies see here.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
https://creation.com/journal-of-creation-articles

[total relism]

Gngngngng! Evolution is not about transmission of information! Why are you obsessed with this false concept?


In the first place, no it wasn't and in the second place, so what? That's like saying you can't believe the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square on the other two sides without also believing the souls of the dead can inhabit beans.



Never said it was about transition of information. I said it was about the origins of all life and complexity. And i was just saying at that time it was understood as it is, not an increase in complexity or a mechanism by witch evolution could exspalin development of higher organisms.

[Gilrandir]

Yes, and I the age would be a debate on chronology not something i care to much for. I go with 10,000 as that is usually the max age given by conservative scholars. If you want arguments for those chronologies see here.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
https://creation.com/journal-of-creation-articles

How come not all modern species were created when older ones were? Or did the creator interfere now and then at a later stage to create something new?

[total relism]

How come not all modern species were created when older ones were? Or did the creator interfere now and then at a later stage to create something new?

post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
post 40- predictions based on creation

[Gilrandir]

We believe Noah's flood was global killing all land dwelling life at that time. We believe this is confirmed by the fact that there are trillions of dead plants and animals laid down by water in massive graves all over the earth.



In other words, all existing species were saved by one single person from the flood and all dinosaurs and mammoths weren't and died and fossilized?
This version still doesn't answer why modern species aren't found fossilized together with dinosaurs and how extinct species which science claims to belong to different ages are not found together (e.g. mammoths and dinosaurs).

[total relism]

In other words, all existing species were saved by one single person from the flood and all dinosaurs and mammoths weren't and died and fossilized?
This version still doesn't answer why modern species aren't found fossilized together with dinosaurs and how extinct species which science claims to belong to different ages are not found together (e.g. mammoths and dinosaurs).



Thanks for taking the time to read on creation and sorry if this is confusing. Noah and his family built an ark that all land dwelling air breathing kinds of animals were saved on and this includes the 40 or so dinosaur kinds and elephant kind [mammoth]. They have since gone extinct with their ancestors of some still around such as the modern elephant.


So according to creation we would not find modern species with dinosaurs but only kinds [often family] with dinosaurs. Evolution [not science] claims these are different ages and i can see why you would see that as a logical explanation, as it would be. But as my op showed it does follow circular reasoning and their are multiple reasons to reject this interpretation.


So your valid question is are not modern kinds found with dinosaurs if they lived at the same time. I would say many have been found and more all the time and often when an animals is found in the wrong layer, it is exspalined away see my post on dating fossils.

animals alive today found with dinosaurs fossils

“We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).
“The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.”“Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.“Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.“All of today’s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).”“Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, flamigos etc. At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal forms such as the multituberculates2 but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus. “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers
- Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., Kielan, Cifelli, R.L. and Luo, Z.X., Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure, Columbia University Press, NY, 2004

almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing. Also, we saw only a few dozen incomplete skeletons/single bones of the 432 mammal species found so far. Why don’t the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”
“In the dinosaur rock layers, we found fossils from every major plant division living today including: flowering plants, ginkgos, cone trees, moss, vascular mosses, cycads, and ferns. Again, if you look at these fossils and compare them to modern forms, you will quickly conclude that the plants have not changed. Fossil sequoias, magnolias, dogwoods, poplars and redwoods, lily pads, cycads, ferns, horsetails etc. have been found at the dinosaur digs.” Along with dinosaurs, the finds included an extinct bird named Rahonavis, a short-bodied crocodile-like creature called Simosuchus, and a toad that Krause and his colleagues named Beelzebufo.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/17/unearthing-the-story-of-madagascar-fossil-by-fossil/

Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”
Interview with Dr Donald Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum by Dr Carl Werner, 13 February 2001, in Living Fossils—Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, New Leaf Press, 2009, p. 173

squirls, beavers, tasmanian devils, racoon tracks, mamel skin, 20 ponund rodent found with dinasurs. They are found with oak trees, willow trees, magnolia, firs and wollemi pine.
Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9
Interviewed in Creation magazine,10 Dr Carl Werner pointed out that already over 432 mammal species have been identified in ‘dinosaur rock’, including nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. Yet in his extensive travels to 60 museums across the world researching his documentary series, only a few dozen of these species were featured in displays, with not one complete skeleton.
As for the ‘Age of Dinosaurs’, another evolutionary paleontologist explains;
“In a sense, ‘The Age of Dinosaurs’ … is a misnomer … Mammals are just one such important group that lived with the dinosaurs, coexisted with the dinosaurs, and survived the dinosaurs.
Interview with Dr Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology and associate director of research and collections at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, by Dr Carl Werner, 17 May 2004, in Ref. 8
squires,platypus,beaver badger found with dinos
35–37 The so-called ‘age of dinosaurs’
by Calvin Smith creation mag Volume 33, Issue 3July 2011

Large Groundhog
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133092
Dog like animal with dinosaur remains in its stomach
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/dino-dinner-hard-to-swallow/

Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach


robably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago. It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.

http://www.livescience.com/3794-dinosaur-fossil-mammal-stomach.html




“If paleontologist would take a more empirical approach absent the assumption of evolution, the fossil record might appear quite different”
-Micheal Oard Fossil Range extensions continues JOC 27 # 2013

Creationist do not say every species has been around since the beginning. We say each kind has been around since the beginning. The biblical kind is usually at the level of family. So we say a dog, coyote, fox and wolf were not all around from the beginning but shared a common ancestor. So "Canadian geese" would not have been around but its ancestor a similar kind would have. As of 1968 Romer did a study in Vertebrate Paleontology and found 98% of vertebrates families 79.1%, of living families of terrestrial vertebrates and 87.7% of birds have been found in column so far. Along with practically all insects. Time can only raise those numbers.


The argument assumes the circular reasoning and index fossil system built upon evolutionary assumptions to even create a supposed "geological column" and timescales. Add to that The fossil record is always expanding. Organisms are consistently found millions and hundreds of millions of years "earlier and "later" within the evolutionary framework.

“Fossils give a minimum rather than maximum age of a taxon
-Rosen 1985 p 636 geological hierarchies and bibliographic congruence in the carabian annals of the Missouri botanical garden 72:636-659

Further fossils are found out of place all the time extending there range by new finds but evolutionist just keep changing there story. Fossils are reclassified as a separate “species” even though identical or near identical [same kind] when they are found “out of place” to save the idea of a geological column. The evolutionist also employ rescuing devices.


"Fossils frequently occur where they are not ‘supposed’ to. It is then claimed that either the fauna [animals] or flora [plants] have lived longer than previously known (simple extension of stratigraphic range) or that the fossil has been reworked. "In ‘reworking,’ it is claimed that the fossil has been eroded away from a much older host rock and has thus been incorporated into a rock of more recent age. "The reciprocal situation is ‘downwash,’ where it is claimed that an organism has been washed down into rock much older than the time it lived and has become fossilized."
—John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 209.


MIXED-UP FOSSILS—(*#14/27*) Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. In reality, fossils are frequently found in the wrong place,—especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.
There are three ways that the experts deal with this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When large numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. (3) When they are found above their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into a higher strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell up through solid rock into higher levels. REWORKING AND DOWNWASH—As noted in the above paragraph, "Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain fossils which, by their location, disprove the theory.
-Vance Ferrell Science vs evolution



Next the fossil record is not full, evolutionist would say this even more so saying very few animals have been preserved though earths history. Thus many organisms lived alongside others that were preserved while they were not.


Mammals tend to "float and bloat" and avoid fossilization. That is why the fossil record is almost entirely hard shell deep sea organisms. 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms like corals and shellfish. Algae and plants make up 95% of the reaming fossils. Than 95% are invertebrates and insects. .0125% are vertebrates most of them fish. So the chance of finding any number of living species with any fossilized land organism is slim.


Creationist agree with a certain amount of fossil "sorting" but not based on evolutionary assumptions.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/doesnt-order-of-fossils-in-rock-favor-long-ages/

Lets say everything today drooped dead and became a fossil. How many people would be buried with panda bears? How many with lions with jaguars? how many cows with dear? any humans with turkeys? it would be hard to find. But that does not mean they did not live at the same time. In the fossil record you will not find coelacanth fish with whales or human, yet today we all live together just in different ecological systems so we are not buried together. Also evolution has many problems like these themselves like fossils being in the fossil record than disappearing for hundreds of millions of years but then being found alive today. They are called living fossils. One example with Dino's they say no grass was around as it had not yet evolved. Yet they found all the grass family's in Dino stomachs and Dino droppings. How can this be according to evolution? Dino's eating grass that hasn't evolved yet.


What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?
The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.
~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)1
The number of dinosaur fossils is actually relatively small, compared to other types of creatures. Since the Flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record. And that is the case.Vertebrates are not as common as other types of life-forms. This makes sense of these percentages and helps us understand why vertebrates, including dinosaurs, are so rare and even overwhelmed by marine organisms in the record.

[Gilrandir]

Thanks for taking the time to read on creation and sorry if this is confusing. Noah and his family built an ark that all land dwelling air breathing kinds of animals were saved on and this includes the 40 or so dinosaur kinds and elephant kind [mammoth]. They have since gone extinct with their ancestors of some still around such as the modern elephant.


So according to creation we would not find modern species with dinosaurs but only kinds [often family] with dinosaurs. Evolution [not science] claims these are different ages and i can see why you would see that as a logical explanation, as it would be. But as my op showed it does follow circular reasoning and their are multiple reasons to reject this interpretation.


So your valid question is are not modern kinds found with dinosaurs if they lived at the same time. I would say many have been found and more all the time and often when an animals is found in the wrong layer, it is exspalined away see my post on dating fossils.

animals alive today found with dinosaurs fossils

“We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).
“The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.”“Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.“Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.“All of today’s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).”“Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, flamigos etc. At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal forms such as the multituberculates2 but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus. “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers
- Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., Kielan, Cifelli, R.L. and Luo, Z.X., Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure, Columbia University Press, NY, 2004

almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing. Also, we saw only a few dozen incomplete skeletons/single bones of the 432 mammal species found so far. Why don’t the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”
“In the dinosaur rock layers, we found fossils from every major plant division living today including: flowering plants, ginkgos, cone trees, moss, vascular mosses, cycads, and ferns. Again, if you look at these fossils and compare them to modern forms, you will quickly conclude that the plants have not changed. Fossil sequoias, magnolias, dogwoods, poplars and redwoods, lily pads, cycads, ferns, horsetails etc. have been found at the dinosaur digs.” Along with dinosaurs, the finds included an extinct bird named Rahonavis, a short-bodied crocodile-like creature called Simosuchus, and a toad that Krause and his colleagues named Beelzebufo.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/17/unearthing-the-story-of-madagascar-fossil-by-fossil/

Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”
Interview with Dr Donald Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum by Dr Carl Werner, 13 February 2001, in Living Fossils—Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, New Leaf Press, 2009, p. 173

squirls, beavers, tasmanian devils, racoon tracks, mamel skin, 20 ponund rodent found with dinasurs. They are found with oak trees, willow trees, magnolia, firs and wollemi pine.
Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9
Interviewed in Creation magazine,10 Dr Carl Werner pointed out that already over 432 mammal species have been identified in ‘dinosaur rock’, including nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. Yet in his extensive travels to 60 museums across the world researching his documentary series, only a few dozen of these species were featured in displays, with not one complete skeleton.
As for the ‘Age of Dinosaurs’, another evolutionary paleontologist explains;
“In a sense, ‘The Age of Dinosaurs’ … is a misnomer … Mammals are just one such important group that lived with the dinosaurs, coexisted with the dinosaurs, and survived the dinosaurs.
Interview with Dr Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology and associate director of research and collections at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, by Dr Carl Werner, 17 May 2004, in Ref. 8
squires,platypus,beaver badger found with dinos
35–37 The so-called ‘age of dinosaurs’
by Calvin Smith creation mag Volume 33, Issue 3July 2011

Large Groundhog
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133092
Dog like animal with dinosaur remains in its stomach
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/dino-dinner-hard-to-swallow/

Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach


robably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago. It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.

http://www.livescience.com/3794-dinosaur-fossil-mammal-stomach.html




“If paleontologist would take a more empirical approach absent the assumption of evolution, the fossil record might appear quite different”
-Micheal Oard Fossil Range extensions continues JOC 27 # 2013

Creationist do not say every species has been around since the beginning. We say each kind has been around since the beginning. The biblical kind is usually at the level of family. So we say a dog, coyote, fox and wolf were not all around from the beginning but shared a common ancestor. So "Canadian geese" would not have been around but its ancestor a similar kind would have. As of 1968 Romer did a study in Vertebrate Paleontology and found 98% of vertebrates families 79.1%, of living families of terrestrial vertebrates and 87.7% of birds have been found in column so far. Along with practically all insects. Time can only raise those numbers.


The argument assumes the circular reasoning and index fossil system built upon evolutionary assumptions to even create a supposed "geological column" and timescales. Add to that The fossil record is always expanding. Organisms are consistently found millions and hundreds of millions of years "earlier and "later" within the evolutionary framework.

“Fossils give a minimum rather than maximum age of a taxon
-Rosen 1985 p 636 geological hierarchies and bibliographic congruence in the carabian annals of the Missouri botanical garden 72:636-659

Further fossils are found out of place all the time extending there range by new finds but evolutionist just keep changing there story. Fossils are reclassified as a separate “species” even though identical or near identical [same kind] when they are found “out of place” to save the idea of a geological column. The evolutionist also employ rescuing devices.


"Fossils frequently occur where they are not ‘supposed’ to. It is then claimed that either the fauna [animals] or flora [plants] have lived longer than previously known (simple extension of stratigraphic range) or that the fossil has been reworked. "In ‘reworking,’ it is claimed that the fossil has been eroded away from a much older host rock and has thus been incorporated into a rock of more recent age. "The reciprocal situation is ‘downwash,’ where it is claimed that an organism has been washed down into rock much older than the time it lived and has become fossilized."
—John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 209.


MIXED-UP FOSSILS—(*#14/27*) Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. In reality, fossils are frequently found in the wrong place,—especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.
There are three ways that the experts deal with this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When large numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. (3) When they are found above their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into a higher strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell up through solid rock into higher levels. REWORKING AND DOWNWASH—As noted in the above paragraph, "Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain fossils which, by their location, disprove the theory.
-Vance Ferrell Science vs evolution



Next the fossil record is not full, evolutionist would say this even more so saying very few animals have been preserved though earths history. Thus many organisms lived alongside others that were preserved while they were not.


Mammals tend to "float and bloat" and avoid fossilization. That is why the fossil record is almost entirely hard shell deep sea organisms. 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms like corals and shellfish. Algae and plants make up 95% of the reaming fossils. Than 95% are invertebrates and insects. .0125% are vertebrates most of them fish. So the chance of finding any number of living species with any fossilized land organism is slim.


Creationist agree with a certain amount of fossil "sorting" but not based on evolutionary assumptions.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/doesnt-order-of-fossils-in-rock-favor-long-ages/

Lets say everything today drooped dead and became a fossil. How many people would be buried with panda bears? How many with lions with jaguars? how many cows with dear? any humans with turkeys? it would be hard to find. But that does not mean they did not live at the same time. In the fossil record you will not find coelacanth fish with whales or human, yet today we all live together just in different ecological systems so we are not buried together. Also evolution has many problems like these themselves like fossils being in the fossil record than disappearing for hundreds of millions of years but then being found alive today. They are called living fossils. One example with Dino's they say no grass was around as it had not yet evolved. Yet they found all the grass family's in Dino stomachs and Dino droppings. How can this be according to evolution? Dino's eating grass that hasn't evolved yet.


What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?
The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.
~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)1
The number of dinosaur fossils is actually relatively small, compared to other types of creatures. Since the Flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record. And that is the case.Vertebrates are not as common as other types of life-forms. This makes sense of these percentages and helps us understand why vertebrates, including dinosaurs, are so rare and even overwhelmed by marine organisms in the record.

I don't see how this supports your claim of all antediluvian creatures living at the same time. It was well known before that small mammals appeared in the time of dinosaurs. Since dinosaurs varied in size it well could be that small mammals hunted even smaller dinosaurs.

You still didn't provide any proofs of mammoths being fossilized together with dinosaurs. And you seem to have overlooked the issue of dating in your post. The only date I saw was 130 million years ago which overthrows your 7000 year dating claim.

To draw the line: even if there are inconsistencies in the current evolution theory none of them are serious enough to doubt a much older life of the Universe (to say nothing of the Earth) than the Bible suggests.

[Pannonian]

To draw the line: even if there are inconsistencies in the current evolution theory none of them are serious enough to doubt a much older life of the Universe (to say nothing of the Earth) than the Bible suggests.

We haven't finalised the value of pi. We are still finding ever more accurate approximations.

Ergo God did it.

[total relism]

I don't see how this supports your claim of all antediluvian creatures living at the same time. It was well known before that small mammals appeared in the time of dinosaurs. Since dinosaurs varied in size it well could be that small mammals hunted even smaller dinosaurs.

You still didn't provide any proofs of mammoths being fossilized together with dinosaurs. And you seem to have overlooked the issue of dating in your post. The only date I saw was 130 million years ago which overthrows your 7000 year dating claim.

To draw the line: even if there are inconsistencies in the current evolution theory none of them are serious enough to doubt a much older life of the Universe (to say nothing of the Earth) than the Bible suggests.


I am not sure it cannot. My point is many modern species are found with dinosaurs, the fossil record is expanding, it is adjusted to "fit" the standard view, it is based on circular reasoning, and the chances of finding any one kind with a dinosaur is very, very,very low such as a mammoth with a dino. And if they are found tomorrow, you would just pick another kind not found with dinos. Most important, just because animals are not buried together does not mean they did not live at the same time.

As for the dating it was an evolutionist source and used the standard dating, of course i reject it for the reasons i gave in my op. I think of course there is good reason to doubt an old earth and not much to the evidence for an old earth. But this area is not what makes me a creationist as i think both sides have indicators in their favor, but all are based on bad assumptions and unproven. That is why other areas more to observation/demonstration such as biology hold more weight imo.

[total relism]

We haven't finalised the value of pi. We are still finding ever more accurate approximations.

Ergo God did it.

evolution is refuted by science in many ways, thus we should not allow our personal bias to not explore other options that make more sense.

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011

[Gilrandir]

My point is many modern species are found with dinosaurs,


It is not news. Paleontology has claimed for years that many modern species appeared before dinosaurs so they lived for some time together until the latter were exti... oops, until they couldn't pay their fare on the arc. For example, crocodiles, sharks, a number of insects.

Moreover, we seem to forget that evolution could move at different pace in different part of the world. Like Australia abounds in marsupials not found anywhere else and doesn't have indigenous higher mammals and primates.


the fossil record is expanding, it is adjusted to "fit" the standard view,

Don't you call it "development of the theory"? Any theory is liable to change when new discoveries are made. It is only religion that desires to keep everything as it was a thousand years before. Perhaps because at that time the church was a virtual ruler of the world and clerics were among the richest potentates of the time?



it is based on circular reasoning,

At least there IS reasoning, not just reiterating "modern science can't explain it, so the universal answer is God created it in such a way."




both sides have indicators in their favor, but all are based on bad assumptions and unproven.

After that statement I would call it a day and admit there was no call to start the thread at all.

[total relism]

It is not news. Paleontology has claimed for years that many modern species appeared before dinosaurs so they lived for some time together until the latter were exti... oops, until they couldn't pay their fare on the arc. For example, crocodiles, sharks, a number of insects.

Moreover, we seem to forget that evolution could move at different pace in different part of the world. Like Australia abounds in marsupials not found anywhere else and doesn't have indigenous higher mammals and primates.



Don't you call it "development of the theory"? Any theory is liable to change when new discoveries are made. It is only religion that desires to keep everything as it was a thousand years before. Perhaps because at that time the church was a virtual ruler of the world and clerics were among the richest potentates of the time?



At least there IS reasoning, not just reiterating "modern science can't explain it, so the universal answer is God created it in such a way."





After that statement I would call it a day and admit there was no call to start the thread at all.



Proving my point. BTW dinosaurs were on the ark.


"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.



Very true,only the religion of the day that seeks to fight change is evolution.


"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." —*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).



Trust me it is the creationist seeking major changes. Perhaps the evoutionist hates change for the same reaons today, Perhaps because at that time evolutionist was a virtual ruler of the world and scientist among the richest in grants and respected potentates of the time?




I would rather go with reasoning than illogical reasoning. You might disagree with creation reasoning of fossil sorting, but at least its logical.




“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge

[Pannonian]

evolution is refuted by science in many ways, thus we should not allow our personal bias to not explore other options that make more sense.

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011

This bit shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Positivist science is supposed to be self-correcting over time. The scientific method is about proving what can be proved and then basing reasonable conclusions as to understanding a phenomenon based on what can be confirmed through research. It is SUPPOSED to alter when it encounters either contradictory results or the state of the art allows for a newer and fuller understanding based on the use of an improved research methodology. The theory of evolution has been tested and re-tested and yes, some of the data collected by research does not fit with the current explanation as promulgated in that theory. This becomes the tool for enhancing that theory and making it a more accurate explanation/predictor, as new research is used to explain and resolve the anomalies. If the anomalies come to outnumber the provable facts, we end up with what Kuhn labeled a 'paradigm shift' as the prior central theory is discarded and a new one takes its place.

Newton's discussion of gravity and energy were not "wrong" even though they fell short at explaining some phenomena. intellectual progress and new ways of learning information demonstrated that his theories were limited because even though they worked pretty well to describe terrestrial conditions, they fell short past the atmosphere. So F=ma becomes E=mc2 becomes something else a couple centuries from now. Communication is about the accurate transmission of a message and message fidelity is everything, becomes communication is about how that message is understood by the receiver so interpretation is everything becomes communication is a simultaneous symbol exchange that is inevitably imperfect by we develop rules in the moment to let us negotiate meaning between us becomes who the heck knows what a few decades from now.

Science is not static, "si muove."

[Pannonian]

Ie. scientific theories are revised, not refuted. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. He didn't crap all over them by showing his superiority and ineffable correctness.

[Gilrandir]

Proving my point. BTW dinosaurs were on the ark.


The proof, please.



"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.



Perfectly answered by Seamus.

What I want to add is that modification of theory leads to changing scholarly paradigm, not to disappearing of science. For instance, it was first believed that likeness between languages can be only attributed to their common ancestor, later it turned out that languages can deeply borrow from one another as a result of their speakers' prolonged coexistence.






Trust me it is the creationist seeking major changes.



That's the best argument ever.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ie. scientific theories are revised, not refuted. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. He didn't crap all over them by showing his superiority and ineffable correctness.

Well, later on he did go off on the whole astrology thing....

[total relism]

This bit shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is.

Science is based on repeatable observation and demonstration and knowledge gained from it. Evolution contradicts what we observe in many ways, thus is refuted by science.

[total relism]

Positivist science is supposed to be self-correcting over time. The scientific method is about proving what can be proved and then basing reasonable conclusions as to understanding a phenomenon based on what can be confirmed through research. It is SUPPOSED to alter when it encounters either contradictory results or the state of the art allows for a newer and fuller understanding based on the use of an improved research methodology.



Agreed.



The theory of evolution has been tested and re-tested and yes, some of the data collected by research does not fit with the current explanation as promulgated in that theory. This becomes the tool for enhancing that theory and making it a more accurate explanation/predictor, as new research is used to explain and resolve the anomalies. If the anomalies come to outnumber the provable facts, we end up with what Kuhn labeled a 'paradigm shift' as the prior central theory is discarded and a new one takes its place.


Once more this is how it is suppose to work, and the rise of modern creation and ID likely are the beginnings of this. However you have left out the politics of it all. If not for the politics the shift would have came but the evolutionary gatekeepers as of known are preventing it.




Newton's discussion of gravity and energy were not "wrong" even though they fell short at explaining some phenomena. intellectual progress and new ways of learning information demonstrated that his theories were limited because even though they worked pretty well to describe terrestrial conditions, they fell short past the atmosphere. So F=ma becomes E=mc2 becomes something else a couple centuries from now. Communication is about the accurate transmission of a message and message fidelity is everything, becomes communication is about how that message is understood by the receiver so interpretation is everything becomes communication is a simultaneous symbol exchange that is inevitably imperfect by we develop rules in the moment to let us negotiate meaning between us becomes who the heck knows what a few decades from now.

Science is not static, "si muove."


Agreed. However when a theory increasing has to be altered and increasing is at ods with observation, when can we let science win? and give up the faith?


"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely." —*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.

[total relism]

Ie. scientific theories are revised, not refuted. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. He didn't crap all over them by showing his superiority and ineffable correctness.

And overturn those witch contradict science such as evolution.



"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely." —*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.

[total relism]

The proof, please.


Perfectly answered by Seamus.

What I want to add is that modification of theory leads to changing scholarly paradigm, not to disappearing of science. For instance, it was first believed that likeness between languages can be only attributed to their common ancestor, later it turned out that languages can deeply borrow from one another as a result of their speakers' prolonged coexistence.


That's the best argument ever.


The bible. If you do not believe without scientific proof, how can you than say you believe in evolution? in the biblical model dinosaurs were on the ark, since science deals with observation we cannot do that today just as you cannot disprove it. If you reject gods word than it is outside of testing just like so much of evolution. I never said anything about the disappearance of science, I said maybe the disappearance of evolution as it is contrary to science.



So are you suggesting those in power [evolutionist] in fact want what change and them removed from power?

[Pannonian]

Science is based on repeatable observation and demonstration and knowledge gained from it. Evolution contradicts what we observe in many ways, thus is refuted by science.

So how does creationism follow this method? Where are the experiments showing positive proof of a creator?

[Husar]

The bible. If you do not believe without scientific proof, how can you than say you believe in evolution? in the biblical model dinosaurs were on the ark, since science deals with observation we cannot do that today just as you cannot disprove it. If you reject gods word than it is outside of testing just like so much of evolution. I never said anything about the disappearance of science, I said maybe the disappearance of evolution as it is contrary to science.

https://www.thoughtco.com/dinosaurs-and-noahs-ark-4061665


To date, paleontologists have named nearly 1,000 genera of dinosaurs, many of which embrace multiple species.
[...]
But Ken Ham goes still further; he insists that there were really only 50 or so different "kinds" of dinosaurs and that two of each could easily have fit on the Ark. By the same token, he manages to whittle down the 10 million or so animal species that we know existed, even during biblical times, into a "worst case scenario" of 7,000, simply, it seems, by waving his arms.

[total relism]

So how does creationism follow this method? Where are the experiments showing positive proof of a creator?


I would rather say where has the bible been tested by science and shown constant with science.

post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
post 40- predictions based on creation
post 41 and 43- the fossil record. Lies evolutionist use to claim missing links and how the fossil record supports creation.
post 1 and 2- Age of the earth
also post 38- why i dont have enough faith to be an evolutionist

[total relism]

https://www.thoughtco.com/dinosaurs-and-noahs-ark-4061665

I would like to point out this articles author knows nothing of creation or he is lying multiple times in a short article. But that left aside, he said "To date, paleontologists have named nearly 1,000 genera of dinosaurs, many of which embrace multiple species." Nobody said noah took all the species, he took all the land dwelling kinds [family level usually] and even if it were species, he still had the room.

https://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-Feasibility-John-Woodmorappe/dp/0932766412

the smallest suggested size for the ark could hold 125,000 sheep sized animals only 25,000 known species of mammals birds reptiles amphibians living or extinct avg size much smaller than sheep Noah would have taken babies or adolescent for many reasons suggested creationist kinds around 10,000 to 16,000 there was plenty of room

largest dinosaur egg is the size of a football, noah would have taken 2 smaller and younger animals to reproduce after flood not full grown adults.Size of young t-rex
http://www.icr.org/article/6130/



Dinosaur species continue to fall, many species are just younger versions of adult dinos.
Tiny dinosaur creates paleontology puzzle discovery.com 4 jan 2010 journal of vertebrate paleontology 30 [4] 1157-1168 2010
new scientist 207 [2771] 6-7 2010
journal of vertebrate paleontology 29[1] 291-294 2009
news national geographic .com/news2009/10/091009-dinosaur species never existed.html oct 2009
Also species incorrectly named because of incomplete fossils


dinosaur species incorrectly named because of incomplete fossils
dalton fossil quality and naming dinosaur biology letters 4 [6] 729-732 dec 2008

there are errors in almost half the names given to dinosaurs
www.nature.com/news/2008/080917/full/news2008.111.html 17 sep 2008

reducing numbers of dinos
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/10/goodbye-anatotitan/

[Pannonian]

I would rather say where has the bible been tested by science and shown constant with science.

post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
post 40- predictions based on creation
post 41 and 43- the fossil record. Lies evolutionist use to claim missing links and how the fossil record supports creation.
post 1 and 2- Age of the earth
also post 38- why i dont have enough faith to be an evolutionist

What were the tests? Explain each test in a paragraph of plain English.

Eg. Plate tectonics describes plates of solid rock floating on seas of molten rock. The areas between plates are called faultlines, where molten rock flows out to form new solid rock. An example of a faultline is the mid-Atlantic rift that separates the Eurasian and American plates, with the rift emerging above sea level in Iceland.

There ya go, a simplified explanation of plate tectonics in a short paragraph of plain English, complete with example. What are those experiments you talk about that prove creationism? Please explain in similarly concise form. Or does your home schooling not extend to erudite English, and you can only copy and paste?

[Husar]

the smallest suggested size for the ark could hold 125,000 sheep sized animals only 25,000 known species of mammals birds reptiles amphibians living or extinct avg size much smaller than sheep Noah would have taken babies or adolescent for many reasons suggested creationist kinds around 10,000 to 16,000 there was plenty of room

largest dinosaur egg is the size of a football, noah would have taken 2 smaller and younger animals to reproduce after flood not full grown adults.Size of young t-rex

Plus room for them to move around, food and water for all of them for 370 days, room for the small animals to grow larger, teaching them all the things their parents would teach them and/or breeding the eggs every day...
And it is actually not all that big: http://fpcnorthportfl.net/noahs-ark-its-size-etc/

Not to forget that quite a few animals would reproduce several times in 370 days, especially bacteria but also other small animals.
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/rat_indian_reproduction

Rat Reproduction
You can't call them lazy. Once a female rat reproduces, she could have 15,000 descendants by the end of just one year!

But I guess that and the much larger size of grown insects back then was also calculated into the food and water needs? How were the food needs of carnivores and parasites satisfied?

And since you put an emphasis on them all having been land animals, how did they get there from multiple different continents?

[total relism]

What were the tests? Explain each test in a paragraph of plain English.

Eg. Plate tectonics describes plates of solid rock floating on seas of molten rock. The areas between plates are called faultlines, where molten rock flows out to form new solid rock. An example of a faultline is the mid-Atlantic rift that separates the Eurasian and American plates, with the rift emerging above sea level in Iceland.

There ya go, a simplified explanation of plate tectonics in a short paragraph of plain English, complete with example. What are those experiments you talk about that prove creationism? Please explain in similarly concise form. Or does your home schooling not extend to erudite English, and you can only copy and paste?


I am trying to avoid large copy paste anymore please see those posts.


Age of earth- many indicators say the earth cannot be millions of years old and there are issues/assumptions with any method that claims otherwise.

Fossil record- The fossil record shows what creation predicts, diverse animal kinds with variation within the kind.


Biological change- All change observed through mutations/ adaptation/natural selection are constant with the biblical mode of separate created kinds with large amounts of built in diversity that now suffer from the fall and as a result mutation lose information and destroy what is already present.

Flood- billions of dead plants and animals rapidly buried around the world confirm a global flood

design- complexity past human ability and design are clear in nature


origin of life- comes from intelligence, supported by science.


non material- evolution cannot account for non material logic, memory, laws of nature, morality, information, intelligence


Science- evolution cannot exspalin the origin of science.




few others but that is the basics.

[total relism]

Plus room for them to move around, food and water for all of them for 370 days, room for the small animals to grow larger, teaching them all the things their parents would teach them and/or breeding the eggs every day...
And it is actually not all that big: http://fpcnorthportfl.net/noahs-ark-its-size-etc/

Not to forget that quite a few animals would reproduce several times in 370 days, especially bacteria but also other small animals.
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/rat_indian_reproduction


But I guess that and the much larger size of grown insects back then was also calculated into the food and water needs? How were the food needs of carnivores and parasites satisfied?

And since you put an emphasis on them all having been land animals, how did they get there from multiple different continents?


I would say very large, one was built to dimensions in Kentucky.
https://arkencounter.com/


There was indeed room for them and food with some to spare. There was not much growing larger in the time frame. Neither was thewre likely much

"teaching them all the things their parents would teach them and/or breeding the eggs every day."



On the rats my guess would be bring them at an age before they can reproduce. Or feed them to the bigger animals :stupid: on the insects, well they were not on the ark so that solves that pretty easy. As for the food needs of carnivores, my guess is they were fed. How did they spread out after the flood? my guess those that walk walked, those that ran, ran, jumped, hopped, swam etc

[Gilrandir]

in the biblical model dinosaurs were on the ark,

Quote, please, Bible where dinosaurs on the ark are mentioned.



Dinosaur species continue to fall, many species are just younger versions of adult dinos.


In fact, there was only one species of dinosaurs. Paleontologists just assembled the found bones in different ways.


Plus room for them to move around, food and water for all of them for 370 days, room for the small animals to grow larger, teaching them all the things their parents would teach them and/or breeding the eggs every day...
And it is actually not all that big: http://fpcnorthportfl.net/noahs-ark-its-size-etc/

Not to forget that quite a few animals would reproduce several times in 370 days, especially bacteria but also other small animals.
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/rat_indian_reproduction


But I guess that and the much larger size of grown insects back then was also calculated into the food and water needs? How were the food needs of carnivores and parasites satisfied?

And since you put an emphasis on them all having been land animals, how did they get there from multiple different continents?

You are taking over after me? Keep going. I'm tired.

[total relism]

Quote, please, Bible where dinosaurs on the ark are mentioned.



In fact, there was only one species of dinosaurs. Paleontologists just assembled the found bones in different ways.



You are taking over after me? Keep going. I'm tired.


Dinosaur means 'terrible lizard" and was not used until the 1800's. They were land air breathing dwellers so they fall under the category of animals on the ark.


And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,...And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,

[Husar]

Dinosaur means 'terrible lizard" and was not used until the 1800's. They were land air breathing dwellers so they fall under the category of animals on the ark.


And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,...And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,

Yes, note how that totally includes most insects.

[Gilrandir]

Dinosaur means 'terrible lizard" and was not used until the 1800's. They were land air breathing dwellers so they fall under the category of animals on the ark.


And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,...And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,

So dinosaurs, together with mammoths, were saved from the deluge and after they disembarked they just went extinct for no reason? In matters of hundreds of years? While other animals keep living till today?

[Pannonian]

So dinosaurs, together with mammoths, were saved from the deluge and after they disembarked they just went extinct for no reason? In matters of hundreds of years? While other animals keep living till today?

Of course. Dinosaurs were hunted into extinction by humans. The KT boundary marks the point where humans roasted their dinosaur prey and left their mark on the landscape. It's all there in the science.

[total relism]

Yes, note how that totally includes most insects.

“For the life [Hebrew: nep̄eš] of the flesh is in the blood [Hebrew: dām]” (Leviticus 17:11, 14; cf. Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23). Insects do not have blood;

“in which is the breath of life,” (Hebrew: ’ăšer-bô rûaḥ ḥayyîm; Genesis 7:15, 22; cf. Job 7:7). Like bāśār, this additional phrase is never conclusively used of invertebrates. Additionally, in Genesis 7:22 the statement is made that “all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.” The Hebrew word ’ap̄ refers literally to the nose or nostrils. Insects do not have nostrils (or lungs), and do not intake air the same way as most other land animals.

[total relism]

So dinosaurs, together with mammoths, were saved from the deluge and after they disembarked they just went extinct for no reason? In matters of hundreds of years? While other animals keep living till today?

Today they are probable all extinct [like many other organisms] likely due to climate change after the flood during the ice age as so many species did from diet change or perhaps human hunting of larger animals. Like tigers and elephants in many area went extinct due to human hunting until laws protected them. However there are many stories/ paintings/ recorded history of dinosaurs that suggest they lived at least in small numbers for long periods after the flood.

[total relism]

Of course. Dinosaurs were hunted into extinction by humans. The KT boundary marks the point where humans roasted their dinosaur prey and left their mark on the landscape. It's all there in the science.

Did a comet kill the dinosaurs?

Some scientists blame comets for the lack of dinosaurs on earth today. They hypothesize that a large comet collided with our planet long ago. This resulted in great clouds of dust in the air, which shielded the sun and cooled the earth's climate for many years. Since dinosaurs could not adjust to the colder weather, they perished. This is just one of many theories about the demise of the dinosaurs. The list of suggested catastrophes, both on the earth and in the sky, is considerable. Some of the other astronomical events used to explain the death of dinosaurs are:

The sun became either too hot or too cold for dinosaurs.
The world's climate became either too dry or too wet.
A supernova exploded nearby, spraying the earth with radiation.
Earth 's magnetic field reversed, and incoming radiation killed most life.
A passing comet poisoned the earth with chemicals.
A giant meteorite crashed into the sea, and a tidal wave then swept the land and drowned life.
There is a lack of supporting evidence for any of these events! Instead, creationists suggest that most dinosaurs died as a result of the great flood described in Genesis 6-8. Dinosaur types which were preserved on the ark probably faced severe climate changes following the flood. Creation research continues to demonstrate the importance of the worldwide flood in explaining earth's history


Mammals eating dinosaur eggs.
New narcotic plants evolved.
Global cooling/global warming.
Loss of plants causing herbivores to starve, which in turn caused the carnivores to starve.
Lowering of oxygen partial pressure in the atmosphere.
Great impact theory
The current ‘glamour’ theory was proposed by the geologist Walter Alvarez in about 1980, that a meteor strike 66.4 million years ago caused dramatic climatic changes much like ‘nuclear winter’. This caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other species. His evidence was his discovery of an allegedly world-wide layer of clay with a high iridium content. His father Luis, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1968 for work on subatomic particles, helped him publicize the theory. It is now accepted as ‘proven fact’ in many circles, and popularized in ‘documentaries’ such as Walking with Dinosaurs.
Problems with the ‘great impact’ theory
The secular book The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy exposes the way that the meteor explanation for the dinosaur extinction has become a new dogma that has way outstripped the evidence (see review by Carl Wieland in Journal of Creation 12(2):154–158, 1998). Some of the reasons are:
The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age interpretations of the geological record). But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Noah’s Flood.
Light-sensitive species survived.
Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates.
Modern volcanic eruptions don’t cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop.
The iridium enrichment, supposedly a key proof of meteor impact, is not nearly as clearly defined as claimed.
Drill cores of the apparent ‘smoking gun’ Chicxulub Crater on the Yucatán peninsula in south-east Mexico do not support the idea that it is an impact crater.
It seems that some scientists didn’t speak out against the idea for fear of undermining the ‘nuclear winter’ idea, and being grouped with ‘nuclear warmongers’.
http://creation.com/book-review-the-great-dinosaur-extinction-controversy

There are serious problems with the evidence proposed for any of these events. Take the large asteroid impact theory, for example. Why would that event only wipe out the dinosaurs and not the ducks, squirrels, beavers, etc. that co-existed with them as mentioned above? Not to mention lizards and crocodiles, supposedly their close cousins? Some evolutionists dispute the evidence of this impact as causing dino extinction
http://creation.com/dino-impact-theory-takes-a-hit

dino extinction circular reasoning
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-233

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4 anwsers v vol 4 sites journal of the geological society [166] 393-411 that shows problems with the theory of a comet destroying the dinos.

dino teeth found above kt boundary and a few other dino remains p371
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Earths-Catastrophic-Past,6438,226.aspx


climate change killed the dinosaurs problems with this idea
p116 In the beginning walt brown 2008
problems for asteroid killing the dinasours
p116-117 In the beginning walt brown p116-117

mass extinctions
volcanic dust has similar chemical signature to a asteroid
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/NEW-Answers-Book-2-The,5697,224.aspx

[Pannonian]

climate change killed the dinosaurs problems with this idea
p116 In the beginning walt brown 2008
problems for asteroid killing the dinasours
p116-117 In the beginning walt brown p116-117


Why is it that most of the "authorities" you cite tend to be engineers, rather than biologists commenting on biology, geologists commenting on geology, astronomists commenting on astronomy, etc.? Oh hang on, I missed your citation of a medical doctor commenting on geology.

[Husar]

“For the life [Hebrew: nep̄eš] of the flesh is in the blood [Hebrew: dām]” (Leviticus 17:11, 14; cf. Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23). Insects do not have blood;

“in which is the breath of life,” (Hebrew: ’ăšer-bô rûaḥ ḥayyîm; Genesis 7:15, 22; cf. Job 7:7). Like bāśār, this additional phrase is never conclusively used of invertebrates. Additionally, in Genesis 7:22 the statement is made that “all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.” The Hebrew word ’ap̄ refers literally to the nose or nostrils. Insects do not have nostrils (or lungs), and do not intake air the same way as most other land animals.

So why aren't they dead then?

[total relism]

So why aren't they dead then?


Some do argue insects were on the ark [still plenty of room] some argue some insects, if not as a category, were taken as pollinator, composted, plant caretakers, as food or came along for the ride on various animals. However while the flood was a year long, the whole earth was not covered a that long an the tallest trees [where insects could avoid the flood] could have been covered only weeks in some places.

https://www.howitworksdaily.com/white-water-rapids/


but where they most likely survived was on the vast vegetation mats that would [and are] produced by massive floods.


Start under Mats could last decades
https://creation.com/post-flood-log-mats-and-animal-migration

[Husar]

So insects survived on floating stuff but there wasn't a single other human with a boat to survive on?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So insects survived on floating stuff but there wasn't a single other human with a boat to survive on?

Too busy in our pre-diluvian iniquities too worry about personal safety no doubt.

[total relism]

So insects survived on floating stuff but there wasn't a single other human with a boat to survive on?

In those conditions would you agree insects can survive much better? they could have avoided the effects of the flood much longer and humans need food. How would we eat after the first few months assuming we could stay on the giant rafts we are much bigger. Not sure we could find enough fresh water either.

[Husar]

In those conditions would you agree insects can survive much better? they could have avoided the effects of the flood much longer and humans need food. How would we eat after the first few months assuming we could stay on the giant rafts we are much bigger. Not sure we could find enough fresh water either.

Insects need both food and fresh water as well. Plenty of them would get eaten by the others on those rafts. By far not all insects alive today are predators though. Some of them would also need nests for their offspring since they die in winter, etc.
https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/long-can-wasp-live-food-461d1cae68812af2#

You can't just expect them to sit on a floating branch for weeks and wait.

[total relism]

Insects need both food and fresh water as well. Plenty of them would get eaten by the others on those rafts. By far not all insects alive today are predators though. Some of them would also need nests for their offspring since they die in winter, etc.
https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/long-can-wasp-live-food-461d1cae68812af2#

You can't just expect them to sit on a floating branch for weeks and wait.


Yes but insects eat different than we do dont they. I bet rain and pockets of still fresh water provided them enough as they did not need much. I also agree many would be eaten and be a food supply for others. What makes you think their was a winter during a global flood? and if so, it was not everywhere. The floating mass of trees/derbies etc is a bit more than a stick.

[Husar]

Yes but insects eat different than we do dont they. I bet rain and pockets of still fresh water provided them enough as they did not need much. I also agree many would be eaten and be a food supply for others. What makes you think their was a winter during a global flood? and if so, it was not everywhere. The floating mass of trees/derbies etc is a bit more than a stick.

Yes, they eat from blossoms for example. How many blossoms still producing nectar for the insects would you expect in the floating debris?
And if there were enough, why was there no food for humans or rodents so that they needed to be on the ark?
If predators were hunting the insects while quite a few of them likely couldn't reproduce, how many species of insects would you think went extinct? Where did they get fresh water to drink?

As for the winter, 370 days is a bit more than a year, one would expect that to include two winters, one in the southern half and one in the northern half of the earth disc.

[Gilrandir]

Insects need both food and fresh water as well. Plenty of them would get eaten by the others on those rafts.

It is also true about animals. Perhaps dinosaurs didn't survive because they were eaten on the ark.

[total relism]

Yes, they eat from blossoms for example. How many blossoms still producing nectar for the insects would you expect in the floating debris?
And if there were enough, why was there no food for humans or rodents so that they needed to be on the ark?
If predators were hunting the insects while quite a few of them likely couldn't reproduce, how many species of insects would you think went extinct? Where did they get fresh water to drink?

As for the winter, 370 days is a bit more than a year, one would expect that to include two winters, one in the southern half and one in the northern half of the earth disc.

I would suggest they eat more than blossoms. I would also say some live vegetation and large amounts of dead vegetation existed on these mats, as well and other insects , decaying carcasses etc and that many did indeed die. Also they would have best avoided the flood for the longest time period and likely not have had to be on the mats long. Humans of course eat different and have different needs to survive. Insects can live on those mats a long time. People would have found it very hard. Further, who survived when the large flood came in the area?

https://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-insects-survive-floods/

its almost like asking why cant humans survive underground like burrowing animals. As for how many went extinct i have no idea, likely allot. They got water likely from plants, rain, small pools of fresh water on the vegetation mats [they dont need much] and pockets of fresh water in the ocean [It was not as salty today and many creationist think originally fresh water] and i am not sure if a winter happens in that sort of climate during a global flood. Besides the pre flood world was vastly different so that is an assumption. Further the whole world was not flooded that long and insects in many places would have avoided much of it. It is likely some areas on the top of some trees were only under water weeks.

[Husar]

I would suggest they eat more than blossoms. I would also say some live vegetation and large amounts of dead vegetation existed on these mats, as well and other insects , decaying carcasses etc and that many did indeed die. Also they would have best avoided the flood for the longest time period and likely not have had to be on the mats long. Humans of course eat different and have different needs to survive. Insects can live on those mats a long time. People would have found it very hard. Further, who survived when the large flood came in the area?

This is getting silly, your only explanation appear to be magical insect rescue mats of debris. Bees need nectar and pollen, both of which (especially the former) would be quite rare after 40 days of rain and flooding, yet somehow we still have bees because magical man-eating mat-biotopes saved them somehow? Without their nests of course since those would be flooded. I guess all the insects and other animals that live off of blood just swarmed around the ark and sucked everyone and everything dry.

The point about the top of the Himalayas not having been under water for long is not helpful, because how much food can be found on the top of mountains? If there was so much food on mountains, humans could have survived on floats with food for a month or two. Humans living near mountains would have seen the water levels rising anyway.

[Gilrandir]

This is getting silly, your only explanation appear to be magical insect rescue mats of debris. Bees need nectar and pollen, both of which (especially the former) would be quite rare after 40 days of rain and flooding, yet somehow we still have bees because magical man-eating mat-biotopes saved them somehow?

I can't say anything about other insects, but I do know something about bees as my late uncle has kept them for forty years.

Bees can survive without nectar for quite a time (during winter, for example) if either:
1) you don't confiscate ALL of the honey they have sealed with wax in their combs against such an occasion as winter;
2) you feed them. Syrop is usually used for it.

So I don't doubt Noah or one of his numerous family were experienced bee keepers and knew how to help the insects survive.

[Husar]

I can't say anything about other insects, but I do know something about bees as my late uncle has kept them for forty years.

Bees can survive without nectar for quite a time (during winter, for example) if either:
1) you don't confiscate ALL of the honey they have sealed with wax in their combs against such an occasion as winter;
2) you feed them. Syrop is usually used for it.

So I don't doubt Noah or one of his numerous family were experienced bee keepers and knew how to help the insects survive.

But that would mean they were kept on the ark, total relism said insects weren't kept on the ark...

[Gilrandir]

But that would mean they were kept on the ark, total relism said insects weren't kept on the ark...

1.It doesn't matter who said what. It is what is written in the Bible that matters (to total relism, at least).
2. Ark could have towed a caravel or two in its wake or (alternatively) insects kept buzzing over the ark but didn't land on it.

[Husar]

1.It doesn't matter who said what. It is what is written in the Bible that matters (to total relism, at least).
2. Ark could have towed a caravel or two in its wake or (alternatively) insects kept buzzing over the ark but didn't land on it.

1. Humans could have hidden on that caravel.
2. Caravels weren't invented yet.
3. The ark could have towed a second ark, which could have towed a third ark, which could have towed a fourth ark, which could have twoed a fifth ark, which could have towed a sicth ark, which could have towed a seventh ark, which could have towed an eigth ark, which could have towed a ninth ark, which could have towed a tenth ark and then we suddenly have so much space to save everything!
4. So could birds.
5. That's like a lawyer's argument "technically, if they don't touch it, they're not on it, mimimi!". How many flies in your home buzz around without ever touching anything?
6. If it doesn't matter who said what, then talk to the hand...

[Gilrandir]

1. Humans could have hidden on that caravel.
2. Caravels weren't invented yet.
3. The ark could have towed a second ark, which could have towed a third ark, which could have towed a fourth ark, which could have twoed a fifth ark, which could have towed a sicth ark, which could have towed a seventh ark, which could have towed an eigth ark, which could have towed a ninth ark, which could have towed a tenth ark and then we suddenly have so much space to save everything!
4. So could birds.
5. That's like a lawyer's argument "technically, if they don't touch it, they're not on it, mimimi!". How many flies in your home buzz around without ever touching anything?
6. If it doesn't matter who said what, then talk to the hand...

You are losing your touch. A second time you didn't detect trolling on my part. BTW, I was also trollong when I said Noah was an experienced bee keeper.

[Elmetiacos]

Once again, the whole thing boils down to, "It's magic!"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Once again, the whole thing boils down to, "It's magic!"

Of course. Nothing is more magical than existence itself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Once again, the whole thing boils down to, "It's magic!"

Of course. Nothing is more magical than existence itself.

[total relism]

Once again, the whole thing boils down to, "It's magic!"



Agreed, but i think they generally dont call it magic but time.

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."
—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.


“Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone. In fact, the parallels are truly amazing! For example, Deep Time has the power of creation. According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies. He has made canyons, and mountains. Deep Time separated the continents and oceans. He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution. Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man. These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).But it doesn’t end there. Deep Time is also said to have tremendous power to direct the course of events in the universe. Deep Time creates and destroys species and civilizations at a whim. He gives life and takes it away. He continually shapes the earth as he sees fit – changing deserts to lush gardens, and gardens to deserts. Deep Time existed long before man, and will continue long after man, or so we are told. Again, these are characteristics that are rightly attributed only to God (Acts 17:26, Job 42:2, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13, Job 1:21, Isaiah 51:3, 43:19-20, Genesis 13:10, Deuteronomy 29:23, Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 43:10, Revelation 22:13).But according to his disciples, nothing is too difficult for Deep Time! He is able to do any miracle! Consider this famous quote from Dr. George Wald, “Time is the hero of the plot. … Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” Yes, the gradual evolution of dust into people may seem impossible. But with Deep Time, all things are possible! He is the “hero of the plot!” Compare this with the characteristics associated with the biblical God (Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:17).(2) Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe. They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others. This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped. Such worship takes place in the schools and universities, where Deep Time’s wonderful works are praised all the day long.The worship of Deep Time is found in many a science textbook too. Sandwiched in between the discussions of science will be stories about the amazing feats of Deep Time. A little science here, and an amazing story there. Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! The mixture makes for an entertaining, though deceptive read.Devotees take their religion very seriously. Deep Time must not be questioned. That would be sacrilege! Those who fail to worship at the altar of Deep Time are ridiculed, and face being expelled from the classroom. Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published. Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired.Deep Time is not the Living God. Nor is Deep Time an aspect of God, a creation of God, or an ally of God. Deep Time exists only as a concept, created by the mind of men. He has no literal existence. Although his disciples ascribe to him many of the characteristics of the biblical God, it is clear that Deep Time is fundamentally different than the God of the Bible.”
http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/

[Fragony]

a very interesting thread

Yep. In anyway, if the Noah story is real every creature on the planet is inbred, the consequences of inbreeding are well known.

Nice job god, flood something else willya

Question for creativists, if a random mutation is vastly superior, what are the odds of the others surviving. Random mutations should happen daily. Narrows down really quik.

kthxbye

[total relism]

Yep. In anyway, if the Noah story is real every creature on the planet is inbred, the consequences of inbreeding are well known.


Indeed.

http://www.creationicc.org/2018_papers/15%20carter%20Y%20chromosome%20final.pdf
http://www.creationicc.org/2018_papers/20%20Sanford%20et%20al%20Adam%20and%20Eve%20final.pdf
https://creationsuperstore.com/product/mitochondrial-eve-and-the-3-daughters-of-noah-dvd-cmi/






Nice job god, flood something else willya


Next time its fire.



Question for creativists, if a random mutation is vastly superior, what are the odds of the others surviving. Random mutations should happen daily. Narrows down really quik.

kthxbye

Not just sure what you are asking here. Random mutations are harmful, a few are beneficial [through still a loss] in select environments. Natural selection is true and happens. Darwinian evolution is falsified by science and natural selection does not equal Darwinian evolution.

[Gilrandir]

Indeed.

http://www.creationicc.org/2018_papers/15%20carter%20Y%20chromosome%20final.pdf


I'm no specialist in genetics (I believe neither are you). But what I CAN understand is figures. This article features two tables (4 and 5) which estimate the age of mutations. In no table the figure of circa 7 000 years is used. The average of the first is 53 000 years, of the second - 24 500 years. Somehow different from what you claim as far as the age of universe is concerned.




Next time its fire.



You mean as a part of Fire and Fury?

[Fragony]

Indeed.

http://www.creationicc.org/2018_papers/15%20carter%20Y%20chromosome%20final.pdf
http://www.creationicc.org/2018_papers/20%20Sanford%20et%20al%20Adam%20and%20Eve%20final.pdf
https://creationsuperstore.com/product/mitochondrial-eve-and-the-3-daughters-of-noah-dvd-cmi/






Next time its fire.



Not just sure what you are asking here. Random mutations are harmful, a few are beneficial [through still a loss] in select environments. Natural selection is true and happens. Darwinian evolution is falsified by science and natural selection does not equal Darwinian evolution.

Outsourcing means something different usually. Thing is, there is no such thing as a believe in Darwinian evolution. Believe is something you believe in, no need for doubt anymore but things just aren't like that. They aren't to people who believe the evolution-theory is a good place to start. Not that you are saying it but people who call themselve atheists, flying spaghetti monster and all that was a bit funny at the moment, they are jerks imho, why harm what doesn't hurt

Question for atheists as well, why do you care that much about what people believe? Even need a word for rejecting religion the joke's on you if you consider yourself to be one, what's there to reject? I am not going to call myself an atheist because I'm not religious, that's all

[Gilrandir]

Question for atheists as well, why do you care that much about what people believe?

As the case of Total relism shows, believers care about it as much.

[Fragony]

As the case of Total relism shows, believers care about it as much.

Isn't ambuity a nice thing