Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 152

Thread: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

  1. #31
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,482

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    I have had a few glasses of wine [Jesus [god] turned water into wine] so we will see how this goes

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  2. #32

    Default Re: Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    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-Di.../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.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  3. #33

    Default Re: Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    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
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  4. #34

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    "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-Protesta.../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-push...er#creationist
    http://creation.com/the-biblical-ori...e-glory-of-god

    The fall of man and the foundations of science
    http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Found..._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 Histor
    y

    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.





    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    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.
    Last edited by total relism; 07-22-2018 at 13:52.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  5. #35

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Fragony View Post
    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-Dis...the+dissidents
    Silencing the Darwin Skeptics

    https://www.amazon.com/Silencing-Dar...KWAN88GXZ7MPCF

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
    https://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Inte...words=expelled

    free to think? no longer

    http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Car...=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-...%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-Ame...-DVD-Boxed-Set

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

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

    what the schools are teaching DR Dr Charles Jackson
    http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/...ce1d75sa0o5oa0

    Creation Seminar DVD Set by Dr. Kent Hovind
    https://2peter3.com/shop/official-cr...nt-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...=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-Grindi...da+documentary
    AGENDA 2: MASTERS OF DECEIT
    https://www.amazon.com/AGENDA-2-MAST...X76KRVAZN1ZM70

    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/expel...ed-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/aw...#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/2...ked-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/...e-of-life.html
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...cies-tree-life
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4...-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....bout.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..._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...QeX5Y5ARURw.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/expel...ed-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...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/medi...urnerHYPERLINK "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"&HYPER LINK "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_me dium=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"&HYPER LINK "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_ca mpaign=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...ist045041.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/arti...#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
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  6. #36

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    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.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  7. #37

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    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.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  8. #38

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dog-kinds-tn.jpg 
Views:	306 
Size:	20.1 KB 
ID:	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/medi...nderfully-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/onlin...ciences11.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/medi...nderfully-made
    the hearing ear
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...ar/hearing-ear
    the seeing eye
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...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].
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  9. #39

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    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-evoluti...ion-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 [indoctrination] 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 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/arti...tion-evolution
    http://creation.com/refuting-evoluti...rsus-evolution
    https://creation.com/variation-infor...e-created-kind

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dog-fur.jpg 
Views:	42 
Size:	27.5 KB 
ID:	20935Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cold-hot-dog-fur.jpg 
Views:	42 
Size:	30.6 KB 
ID:	20936

    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.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cat-kind-chart.gif 
Views:	55 
Size:	109.0 KB 
ID:	20937


    Biblical Creation and Mutations



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	gg.png 
Views:	41 
Size:	202.6 KB 
ID:	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-flo...genesis-flood/

    A great video on flood evidences
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,5631,229.aspx

    Books on the global flood
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6211,229.aspx
    https://answersingenesis.org/store/p.../global-flood/
    https://usstore.creation.com/how-noa...aped-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.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  10. #40

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    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/medi...nderfully-made
    the hearing ear
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...ar/hearing-ear
    the seeing eye
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...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


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	double-arrow-pointing-opposite-directions_318-76391.jpg 
Views:	196 
Size:	10.2 KB 
ID:	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 [biological or otherwise] 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



    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...sea-creatures/
    https://answersingenesis.org/store/p.../?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/mitocho...rs-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/astrono...-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=bacte...w=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/medi...nderfully-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/reli...ic-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/2011/0...-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/...05574046805070
    “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-chr...ality#_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
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  11. #41

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    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”

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	news.2008.691.jpg 
Views:	411 
Size:	9.5 KB 
ID:	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.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	lucy-makeover.jpg 
Views:	406 
Size:	28.2 KB 
ID:	20941Click image for larger version. 

Name:	lucy-depictions.jpg 
Views:	406 
Size:	37.6 KB 
ID:	20942
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ape-or-ape-man.jpg 
Views:	409 
Size:	60.7 KB 
ID:	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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Nebraska-Man.jpg 
Views:	406 
Size:	101.8 KB 
ID:	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.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	i-c2e1abd20f625e59fe00a560380e4237-hespero-molar-type.jpg 
Views:	398 
Size:	5.3 KB 
ID:	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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	180427-pig-brains-outside-body-feature.jpg 
Views:	408 
Size:	441.4 KB 
ID:	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


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	220px-PSM_V82_D210_Reconstruction_of_Eoanthropus_dawsoni.png 
Views:	9 
Size:	56.9 KB 
ID:	20947Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FossilManofSussexCrop600-264x300.jpg 
Views:	392 
Size:	28.7 KB 
ID:	20948

    “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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	46dbc9c3fa12675d349677c8ef6c50ad--java-man-indonesia.jpg 
Views:	394 
Size:	24.6 KB 
ID:	20949Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Pithecanthropus-erectus.jpg 
Views:	391 
Size:	950.2 KB 
ID:	20950
    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


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tumblr_mhe3lziiok1qz4yqio1_500.jpg 
Views:	371 
Size:	133.4 KB 
ID:	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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9201f51b7f18e083be7f79d26f26ae20.png 
Views:	382 
Size:	413.5 KB 
ID:	20952Click image for larger version. 

Name:	553784125_e69a0573b2_o.jpg 
Views:	379 
Size:	18.9 KB 
ID:	20953Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Slide243.jpg 
Views:	378 
Size:	17.3 KB 
ID:	20954

    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




    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	The-Neanderthal-Encampment-by-Zdenek-Burian-1960.jpg 
Views:	390 
Size:	184.9 KB 
ID:	20955Click image for larger version. 

Name:	6951neandertals.jpg 
Views:	368 
Size:	24.9 KB 
ID:	20956
    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-S.../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/crea...eanderthal.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/s...n-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/arti...emen-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...1218133658.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/...ce.sciencenews




    Lucy



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ape_foot.jpg 
Views:	365 
Size:	39.0 KB 
ID:	20957Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Reconstruction_of_the_fossil_skeleton_of__Lucy__the_Australopithecus_afarensis.jpg 
Views:	367 
Size:	20.5 KB 
ID:	20958
    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-too...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


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9768671_orig.jpg 
Views:	684 
Size:	54.0 KB 
ID:	20959Click image for larger version. 

Name:	noch_10b.jpg 
Views:	367 
Size:	35.9 KB 
ID:	20960


    “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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	download.jpg 
Views:	360 
Size:	13.2 KB 
ID:	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...ramenumber/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


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	archaeopteryx-700x350_imagelarge.jpg 
Views:	365 
Size:	24.3 KB 
ID:	20962 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	164pic2-sm.jpg 
Views:	363 
Size:	7.4 KB 
ID:	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.
    Last edited by total relism; 07-22-2018 at 15:45.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  12. #42

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Seek help.

    Member thankful for this post:



  13. #43

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Evolution of the Whale


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	pakicetus-in-water.jpg 
Views:	359 
Size:	34.7 KB 
ID:	20964Click image for larger version. 

Name:	pakicetus-skeleton.jpg 
Views:	361 
Size:	7.2 KB 
ID:	20965Click image for larger version. 

Name:	pakicetus-depiction.jpg 
Views:	365 
Size:	8.3 KB 
ID:	20966
    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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1200px-Basilosaurus_cetoides_%281%29.jpg 
Views:	361 
Size:	146.8 KB 
ID:	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


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	whale5a.jpg 
Views:	377 
Size:	8.6 KB 
ID:	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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8938Rodhocetus.jpg 
Views:	353 
Size:	19.4 KB 
ID:	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


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1200px-Tiktaalik_Chicago.jpg 
Views:	357 
Size:	179.7 KB 
ID:	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...mple-tiktaalik

    Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?
    https://answersingenesis.org/missing...-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 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

    "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
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  14. #44
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    I never said science was wrong. Science cannot be wrong.
    ...said inquisitors putting more brushwood under Giordano Bruno's feet.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    ?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.
    Last edited by Gilrandir; 07-22-2018 at 20:56.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  15. #45

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    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/showt...e-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 [i.e. God] 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.

    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
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  16. #46
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Gilrandir; 07-23-2018 at 13:32.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  17. #47
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,342

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    "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.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  18. #48
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,164

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    "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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  19. #49

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    "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...l-rock-layers/

    https://answersingenesis.org/the-flo...genesis-flood/

    A great video on flood evidences
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,5631,229.aspx

    Books on the global flood
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6211,229.aspx
    https://answersingenesis.org/store/p.../global-flood/
    https://usstore.creation.com/how-noa...aped-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
    Last edited by total relism; 07-23-2018 at 12:24.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  20. #50

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    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.

    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
    Last edited by total relism; 07-23-2018 at 12:26.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  21. #51

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    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.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  22. #52
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,164

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Last edited by rory_20_uk; 07-23-2018 at 13:11.
    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  23. #53

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    [QUOTE=rory_20_uk;2053780004]
    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by total relism; 07-23-2018 at 12:47.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  24. #54
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,164

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  25. #55

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    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.

    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”


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	antibiotic-resistance.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	27.9 KB 
ID:	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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	h-pylori.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	45.2 KB 
ID:	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
    Last edited by total relism; 07-23-2018 at 13:50.
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  26. #56
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post

    “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?

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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"


    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    “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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    "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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  27. #57
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,164

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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”


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	antibiotic-resistance.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	27.9 KB 
ID:	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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	h-pylori.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	45.2 KB 
ID:	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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  28. #58

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    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.






    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    Thus you don't march in rank and file with billions of Christians who (as true Christians) are creationists?



    "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 [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.


    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.

    “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-witness...s-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 [its all in their] and you can post anything on that thread related.
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...e-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

    “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
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  29. #59

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    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.


    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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dog-fur.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	27.5 KB 
ID:	20976Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cold-hot-dog-fur.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	30.6 KB 
ID:	20977

    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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cat-kind-chart.gif 
Views:	9 
Size:	109.0 KB 
ID:	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



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	gg.png 
Views:	9 
Size:	202.6 KB 
ID:	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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dog-kinds-tn.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	20.1 KB 
ID:	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
    “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

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

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

  30. #60
    Like the Parthian Boot Member Elmetiacos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Forests of Roestoc
    Posts
    1,635

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

    What have all these relgious spam threads got to do with politics?
    'you owe it to that famous chick general whose name starts with a B'
    OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO INDI INTAM PECINAM ELMETIACUI

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO