10/25/2005
Majority of American reject the theory of evolution
Seems as though the lefties, in all their desperation over squeezing God out of peoples’ minds, along with the NEA, have a lot of work to do because the American people just don’t buy it.
How were humans created?
By evolution alone 37%
By God in our present form 32%
By evolution, with God’s guidance 31%
Is it possible to believe in both God and evolution?
Yes 70%
No 30%
Total Votes: 107,433
Conservative Cat linked with New Poll Shows We Have Too Much Faith In Polls
October 25th, 2005 at 7:55 am
In the news article, it says that 51% of people believe that God created man. That was almost the same amount that voted for George W. Bush in 2004. That means that those people also believe in God. This is the AMERICAN TALIBAN! THEY are IGNORANT and BACKWARDS! The liberals must come together and take back this country in the name of the Constitution European Laws Communist Manifesto the American Civil Liberties Union!
(The above rant is pure sarcasm. THey don’t reflect the actual beliefs of the author, especially since his head is not firmly planted in his butt)
October 25th, 2005 at 8:21 am
New Poll Shows We Have Too Much Faith In Polls
Every now and then I wonder if the democratic ideal of “the majority is always right” has led to an out-of-control opinion-polling industry. World Net Daily’s front page has an article entitled God beats evolution in new poll. Now, my…
October 25th, 2005 at 9:04 am
“How can anyone disagree with evolution with so much evidence out there?” asked one AOL user in an associated messageboard. “I don’t see any evidence of how God got here.”
“Did God create liberals?” asks another. “No. Liberals clearly evolved, by accident, from apes. Dumb apes. The average American liberal shows no hint of intelligent design. No wonder liberals are pro-Darwin.”
bwahahaha that was at the end of the WND article that Ferdy posted in the trackback above. Too damned funny.
October 25th, 2005 at 10:20 am
Hold Me
When a young child wants to be held, they simply reach up their arms and say — “Hold me!”
Children may be hurt, scared, or tired; they may not even know why they want to be held, but they know that spending time in arms of love seems to make everything better.
And as a parent looks down at their child, they rarely evaluate them to determine if they deserve to be held, or send them away to earn affection; rather, they simply pick up the child and hold them with no words even being required. In truth, moments like this bring parents some of their greatest joy!
Matthew 18:3
“I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Our Heavenly Father loves us very much. He wants us to come to Him with outstretched arms. He wants to pick us up and hold us tight. In truth, moments like this bring His greatest joy!
And yet, we spend most of our days avoiding our Father’s loving arms … we seek other forms of comfort and work to earn our Father’s affection.
We pour our heart into projects thinking they are vitally important to God’s work — “Daddy, look what I made for You!”
But our best efforts are as grade school pencil holders and disfigured flower pots. Our Father smiles at these simple gifts but wishes we would understand.
There’s much work to do for the Kingdom of God, but none more important than loving and being loved by the One who has loved us since the beginning of time.
Mark 12:30
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”
This can be a difficult concept for many who have not grown up with the unconditional love and acceptance of an earthly father - but our Father in Heaven is like none we’ve ever known.
He created us for a relationship of love and “gave His one and only Son” — John 3:16 — so we could be restored to the relationship which sin stole away.
Let there be no doubt of His love and His promise - “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you” — Hebrews 13:5.
His greatest desire is that we reach up with empty arms and say - “I Love You Daddy — Hold Me!”
October 25th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Yat, you never cease to amaze me.
One of my favorite poems…by Harry Kemp called “God the Architect”…
Who Thou art I know not,
But this much I know:
Thou hast set the Pleiades
In a silver row;
Thou hast sent the trackless winds
Loose upon their way;
Thou hast reared a colored wall
‘Twixt the night and day;
Thou hast made the flowers to bloom
And the stars to shine;
Hid rare gems of richest ore
In the tunneled mine;
But chief of all Thy wondrous works,
Supreme of all Thy plan,
Thou hast put an upward reach
In the heart of Man.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
News flash: The fit between a scientific theory and the observed facts is not determined by an opinion poll.
Creationism (and ‘intelligent design’, the version of creationism currently in vogue), simply does not fit the facts, nor can it make any testable predictions — a necessity for any scientific theory.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
ok, clueless
Karl Marx said:
Marx even sent Darwin proof-sheets of Das Kapital, and offered to dedicate it to him, but the naturalist politely declined, noting that it might embarrass some members of his family.
Marxists may object to this, so let’s switch to arch-capitalism for a moment.
Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, was once said to be America’s richest man. Though raised a Christian, he became an atheist. There is a story that Carnegie returned to his native Scotland and was boasting to a crowd of poor people about his wealth.
“Name one thing for me,” he said, “that God could have given me that I haven’t been able to get for myself!”
And old man near the back of the crowd answered:
“Well, I’ll tell you one thing he could have given you, Mr. Carnegie–a sense of humility.”
How did Carnegie become an atheist? He wrote in his autobiography:
One person almost universally denounced is Adolf Hitler. While Marx saw the “struggle for existence” between the classes, Hitler saw it as between races, and sought to develop a “master race”.
But did he invent the idea?
The subtitle of “The Origin of Species” was “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
Although Darwin wrote about the animal context, extending it to human races was a small leap of logic. In his demented way, Hitler was fulfilling this prediction Darwin made in the Descent of Man:
Racism was prevalent among leading early evolutionists, many of whom believed the races had evolved separately. Britain’s Thomas Huyxley, whose fierce advocacy of evolution won him the nickname “Darwin’s Bulldog”, wrote:
Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man that
Darwin’s son Leonard became president of Britain’s Eugenics Education Society–eugenics, of course, was the campaign to transofrm humanity through selective breeding. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who advanced the idea of the “superman” and master race, called Darwin one of the three greatest men of this century.
Zoologist ERnst Haeckel, perhaps Darwinism’s greatest popularizer in Germany wrote in 1904:
Hitler didn’t invent his deadly racism–these ideas were simmering in Germany during his youth, and easily traced to Darwinian roots. As Germany philospher Erich Fromm observed:
Sir Arthur Keith, president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, wrote in the 1940’s:
This isn’t meant to imply that today’s evolutionists are racists; and certainly Hitler’s atrocities would have revolted Darwin. But it’s to say Darwinism has had relevant social impact. If people are only animals, then for Stalin and Hitler it made sense to treat them like animals, herding them like cattle into boxcars bound for gulags and concentration camps; starving them while working them to death.
It’s reasonable to say that we have experienced a moral decline in America over the last decades.
If we look at statistics such as drug use, teen suicide, and divorce, we see indications that the USA is declining. What happened at Columbine High School would have been unthinkable in the ’50’s when nobody dreamed that weapons detectors would ever be needed in school entrances to protect schools from their students.
What’s caused America’s moral decline? Many would say, “Well, we’ve lost our respect for traditional values.” OK, where did traditional values come from? They came mostly from the bible, which for centuries was Western culture’s central guiding document.
So why have we lost respect for the Bible? It’s not an exaggeration to say that, above anything else, it was the widespread teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution as “fact”. As Huxley said, evolution removed God “from the sphere of rational discussion.” Once you make God irrevelant, the Bible becomes irrelevant, and the moral values in the Bible become irrevelant.
Religion, quite simply, traditionally played a strong role in American social life, and evolution tended to negate that role, with power effects.
Evolution was not heavily underscored in American public schools until the ’60’s. But in 1959, the 100th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of the Species, the National Science Foundation, a government agency, granted $7 million to the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which began producing high school biology textbooks with a strong evolutionary slant. In the meantime, the Supreme Court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional (after having been constitutional for more than 150 years). From then on, students in public schools heard the evolutionist viewpoint–man is just an animal–almost exclusively.
The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff
October 25th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Let’s talk science then. Refuting Darwin: Evidence From Genetics
Darwin’s theory says through many intermediate steps, fish evolved into human beings. So how did fish acquire the genes to become humans? Physically, a creature is limited to be what its genes allow. A whale can’t give birth to a dog–it only has whale genes. A girl can’t be born with blue eyes without genes for blue eyes.
In Darwin’s day, Genetics as a science didn’t exist. He assumed that animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to their environments; an assumption which has been disproven by genetics alone.
He wrote: “By this process long continued…it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.” So…Darwin believed you could take, say, donkeys, and if you put them in the right environment, they could, given enough time, become giraffes. This simply is not true. Even after millions of years in the jungle, donkeys would still be donkeys, because they only have donkey genes.
Modern evolutionists assert, to resolve this dilemma, that a fish’s genes mutated into human genes over eons–but mutations are abrupt alterations in genes. They occur only very rarely. According to evolutionary theory, an organism develops some new positive characteristic through a mutation, better adapting to its environment. The creature then passes this mutated trait on to the next generation, and eventually, it spreads through the whole species. Organisms without the trait, being weaker, die out (survival of the “fittest”). Through this process, fish gradually evolved into men.
But this hypothesis no longer holds up. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University, and the Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations. He has written an important new book, “Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution.” In it, he writes,
Mutations delete information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information. What are they actually observed to cause in human beings? Death. Sterility. Hemophilia. Sickle Cell Anemia. Cystic Fybrosis. Down’s Syndrome. Over 4,000 diseases. The genetic code is designed to run an organism perfectly–mutations delete information from the code, causing birth defects.
To advance their view, evolutionists have long pointed to mutations with beneficial effects. The most common example given; mutations sometimes make bacteria resistant to antibiotics (germ-killing drugs). And so, the argument goes, “If mutations can make bacteria stronger, they must be able to do the same for other creatures.” Dr. Spetner points out that this is based on a misunderstanding, for the mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still involve information loss.
For example. To destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to a part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in the ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacerium is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial, it still constitutes a loss of genetic information, not a gain. No ‘evolution’ has taken place; the bacteria are not stronger. In fact, under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than their nonmutated cousins.
It’s often possible to deduce a benefit from information loss. Suppose you ripped the windshield wipers off your car. Any benefit? Yes, your windshield could never be scratched by the wipers. But don’t we all prefer wipers? Or suppose we just did away with cars completely. That would be a huge loss of information and technology, but there would be benefits, right? Less pollution, nobody would die in car accidents, or get injured by air bags.
What if a mutation causes a child to be born deaf? Any benefit? Yes, the child would never hear curse words. But don’t we all want children who can hear? In the same way, evolutionists, by viewing a particular mutation in a limited context, may describe the mutation as “beneficial” and incorrectly say it represents evolutionary progress. A good example is the disease sickle cell anemia, which some evolutionists have portrayed as beneficial because its deformed red blood cells are immune to malaria. But this is akin to saying it would be good to cut off your toes to prevent athlete’s foot. Like an armless man, the wiperless car, and the deaf child, these “beneficial mutations” turn out to be information losses.
This is quite a problem for evolution. Because if Darwin’s thesis is correct, and all life began as a single cell, then chance mutations must have designed and engineered nearly every biological feature on Earth, from dolphin’s remarkable sonar system (which is the envy of the US Navy) to the human heart, which is an ingenius structuure. Blood is pumped from the right side of the heart to the lungs, where it receives oxygen; back to the heart’s left side, which propels it to the rest of the body through more than 60,000 miles of vessels. The heart has four chambers; a system of valves that prevents backflow into any of these; electrical impulses form a natural pacemaker control the heart’s rhythm.
Rarely, mutations cause babies to be born with congenital heart disorders, making blood shunt to the wrong place. There is no known case of mutations improving circulation. Hemoglobin-the blood’s oxygen-carrying component–has over forty mutant variants. Not one transports oxygen better than normal hemoglobin. To accept evolution, we must believe that human blood circulation–a wonder of engineering–was constructed by chance mutations, when actual observation shows they damage it.
The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff
October 25th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Evidence from Origins Science
Big difficulties arise with the evolutionary idea of life’s beginnings. Charles Darwin and his contemporaries thought cells were rather simple and that it would be feasible for chemicals in a “primordial soup” to come together and form one. But through advances in biology, we now know that even a “simple” cell contains enough information to fill a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
Cells consist essentially of proteins; one cell has thousands of proteins, and proteins are in turn made of smaller building blocks called amino acids. Normally, chains of hundreds of amino acids compose a protein, and these amino acids must be in precise functional sequence.
According to the evolutionary scenario, then, how did the first cell happen? Supposedly, amino acids formed in the primordial soup. Almost every high school biology text recounts Dr. Stanley Miller’s famous experiment. In 1953, Miller, then a University of Chicago graduate studnet, assembled an apparatus in which he combined water with hydrogen, methane, and ammonia (proposed gases of the early earth). He subjected the mixture to electric sparks. After a week, he discovered that some amino acids had formed in a trap in the system. Even though an ancient ocean would have lacked such an apparatus, evolutionists jumped at this, and proposed the theory that in the primitive Earth, lightening (corresponding to Miller’s electricity) could havfe struck a similar array of chemicals and produce amino acids. Since millions of years were involved, eventually they came, by chance, into the correct sequences. The first proteins were formed, and hence, the first cell.
But Sir Francis Crick, who shared Nobel Prize for co-discovering DNA’s structure, has pointed out how impossible that would be. He calculated that the probability of getting just one protein bychance would be one in ten to the power of 260–that’s a one with 260 zeroes after it. To put this into perspective, mathematicians usually consider antying with odds worse than one in 10 to the power of 50 to be, for practical purposes, impossible. Thus, chance couldn’t produce even one protein–let alone the thousands most cells require.
And there are some more pesky facts to this. Cells need more than proteins–they require the genetic code. A bacterium’s genetic code is far more complex than the code fo Windows 98. Nobody thinks the program for Windows 98 could have arisen by chance (unless their hard drive crashed recently).
But wait! Cells need more than genetic code! Like any language, it must be translated to be understood. Cells have devices which actually translate the code! To believe in evolution, we must believe that, by pure chance, the genetic code was created, and also by pure chance, translation devices arose which took this meaningless code and transformed it into something with meaning.
Evolutionists can’t argue that “natural selection would have improved the odds”. Natural selection operates in living things–here we are just discussing dead chemicals that preceded life’s beginning.
How could anything as complex as a cell arise by chance? A famous evolutionary argument, dates back to 1860, the year after the publication of the Origin of Species. At Oxford, Darwin’s Bulldog, Thomas Huxley, engaged in a creation-evolution debate with theologian Samuel Wilberforce. There is no transcript, but reportedly, Huxley, in making his case for chance origins, said that six monkeys, poking randomly at typewriters, and given enough millions of years, could write all the books in the British Museum. More than 100 years later, people heard a variation on that theme;
Anyone who believes these projections hasn’t figured out the math. What are the odds of a monkey typing one predetermined nin-eletter word, such as “evolution”? Let’s assume a typewriter has only letters and no other symbols. Obviously, the first letter “e” would be a piece of cake. But to get “evolution”, since the alphabet has 26 letters, one must multiply 26 by itself eight times. We find the monkey would need, on average, more than five trillion attempts just to write “evolution” once correctly. Typing ten letters per minute, this would take over a million years. To get two consecutive pretermined nine-letter words, such as “evolution commenced”, would take more than billion billion years, taking us much further back than the Big Bang, which supposedly occurred some 15 billion years ago. In other words, if a monkey started typing at the time of the Big Bang, and continued until now, he couldn’t even produce two consecutive preselected 9-letter words–let alone “the works of Shakespeare”.
If it is objected that the example had a roomful of monkeys, Dr. Duane Gish puts the monkey matter in perspective:
Even if the correct chemcials did come together by chance, would they create a living cell? Throwing sugar, flour, oil and eggs on the floor doesn’t make you a cake. Tossing together steel, rubber, glass and plastic doesn’t make you a car. These end products require skillful engineering. How much more so, then, a living organism? Suppose we put a frog in a blender and turn it into puree? All the ingredients for life would be there–but nothing living arises fromit. Even scientists in the lab can’t produce a living creature from chemicals.
How then, can blind chance?
Ok then let’s say that somehow, by chance, a cell really formed in a primeval ocean, complete with all the necessary proteins, amino acids, genetic code, translation devices, a cell membrane, etc.. Presumably, this first little cell would have been rather fragile and short-lived. But wait! It must have been quite a first cell-because within the span of its short lifetime, it must have evolved the complete process of cellular reproduction! Otherwise, there would never have been another cell.
And where did sexual reproduction come from? Male and female reproductive systems are quite different. Why would nature evolve a male reproductive system? Until it was fully functional, it would serve no purpose–and would still serve no purpose unless there was, conveniently available–a female reproductive system–which must have also arisen “by chance”.
Ok, suppose there really were some basic organic compounds formed form the “primordial soup”. If free oxygen was in the atmosphere, it would oxidize many of those compounds. In other words, destroy them. To resolve this dilemma, evolutionists have long hypothesized that the earth’s ancient atmosphere had no free oxygen. For this reason, Stanley Miller didn’t include oxygen in his experiment.
But geologists have now examined what they believe to be the Earth’s oldest rocks and –while finding no evidence for amino acid-filled “primordial soup”–they have concluded that the early Earth was rich in oxygen. So let’s saythe evolutionists are right–the early Earth had no free oxygen. Without oxygen, there would be no ozone, and without the ozone layer, we would receive a lethal dose of the sun’s radiation–in just .3 seconds. How could the fragile beginnings of life have survived in this environment?
These are just a few of the problems that “chemical evolution” as a hypothesis is now facing with science having advanced past the Victorian age. Even first-grade children are taught the “fact” that life began in the ancient primordial soup as a single cell–with the scientific obstacles never discussed.
Darwin’s theory should die on this information alone.
The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff
October 25th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Evidence in Biochemistry
Biochemistry is also giving Darwin problems. That pesky science!
Dr. Michael Behe, biochemist at Lehigh University, has written “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”. In this 1996 book,Behe describes how complex certain biochemical systems are. If any component was missing, the system would have no function. Therefore, it could not have evolved step-by-step. Behe calls this “erriducible complexity”.
Blood clotting, for example, swings into action when we get cut. A clot may look simple to the naked eye, but through a microscope, it is a very complex process involving more than a dozen steps. A person with hemophilia is missing just one clotting factor and is at high risk for bleeding. Someone missing several components would have no chance for survival at all! To paraphrase Behe very simply, if clotting had evolved step-by-step over eons, creatures would have bled to death before it was ever perfected–and its incremental stages never passed on to subsequent generations.
Another example Behe gives: the immune system. When infections occur, it must distinguish invading bacterial cells fromthe body’s own cells–otherwise the latter will be attacked (which is the case in autoimmune diseases). An antibody identifies the bacterium by attaching to it. In a complex biochemical process, a variety of white blood cells -”killer cells” are notified of the bacteria’s presence. These travel to the site, and, using the identifying antibody, attack the enemy.
Like blood clotting, this system is irreducibly complex. Th parts are interdependent. What evolved first? The killer cells? Without the identifying antibody, they wouldn’t know where to attack. But why would the identifier develop first, without killer cells to notify? And if the network evolved gradually, disease would have wiped creature out long before it was perfected.
Behe also demonstrates that other biochemical systems, such as human vision, are also irreducibly complex–they cannot have evolved step-by-step, giving clear evidence that they resulted from intelligent design.
The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff
October 25th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Evidence from Fossils
Does paleontology–the study of fossils–validate evolution? Open a teenager’s biology textbook and you’ll see a “tree of life” from which all life forms branch out. At the tree’s bottom is the single-celled creature. According to Darwin, this little organism gradually evolved into the first invertebrates (creatures without bones, such as jellyfish).
Cambrian rock is the low geologic layer containing most of the oldest known invertebrate fossils. In it, we find literally billions of fossils of invertebrates; clams, snails, worms, sponges, jellyfish, sea urchins, swimming crustaceans, etc.. But there are no fossils demonstrating how these creatures evolved or that they developed from a common ancestor. For this reason, we hear of the Cambrian “explosion”. The late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard acknowledged that “our more extensive labor has still failed to identify any creature that might serve as a plausible immediate ancestor for the Cambrian faunas [animals].” In other words, Darwin’s great “tree of life” is merely speculation, unsupported by fossil evidence.
Supposedly, invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite billions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are not present.
All through the evolutionary tree, the “missing links” are missing. Insects, rodents, pterodactyls, palm trees, and other life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of evolution. Gareth J. Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History stated:
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Muslim of Natural History, wrote:
Many other paleontologists have made equally strong affirmations (see Chapter 2 of “Tornado in the Junkyard”). This certainly doesn’t mean that there are no transitional forms claimed today by evolutionists. Indeed, with the rising challenge to Darwin, fewer evolutionists seem to acknowledge the lack of transitional fossils, perhaps for fear of being quoted by creationists. Some have begun to more strongly assert the existence of such forms.
But the vulnerability of such opinions to error is demonstrated by times when they have been conclusively proven WRONG. Take, for example, Piltdown Man. It was declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old. It was validated by many of Britain’s leading scientists, including noted anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, brain specialist Sir Grafton Eliot Smith, and British Muesum geologist Sir Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran the headline, “Darwin’s Theory Proved True”. For the next 40 years, Piltdown Man was evolution’s greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias. Meanwhile, clergymen who had denounced evolution were ridiculed; Piltdown, it was said, had proven them wrong.
But what did Piltdown Man actually consist of? A recent orangutan jaw, stained to look old, its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skullbone, also stained to create an appearance of age.
Those who think such mistake no longer occur need only consider the Archaeoraptor, promoted in a 10-page color spread in the November 1999 National Geographic as a “true missing link” between dinosaurs and birds. The fossil was displayed in National Geographic’s Explorer’s Hall and viewed by over 100,000 people. But it, too, turned out to be a fake–someone had glued together a bird fossil with part of a dinosaur fossil.
Nor is it just fraud that can deceive. The coelcanth is a bony fish whose fossils can be seen in Jurassic rock (the age of the dinosaurs). Supposedly this create had been extinct for some 70 million years. According to Darwin’s theory, fish evolved into amphibians, (animals that can go on land and water, such as frogs). For years, evolutionists called coelacanth a forerunner of amphibians, its fossilized fins described as limb-like.
Then, in 1938, fishermen caught a live one off the African coast. Since then, about 200 more have been caught. Besides proving the coelacanth was not extinct for 70 million years, examination revealed it was 100% fish, with no amphibian characteristics.
So why is it relatively easy to be misled by a fossil? Since 99% of an organism’s biology resides in its soft anatomy, there is a limit to how much one can deduce from the bone. This makes fossils easy to invest with subjective opinions. As Jerold Lowenstein and Adrienne Zilhlman noted in New Scientist in reference to human ancestry,
There is not conclusive way to test the interpretation of a fossil of an extinct creature. Science cannot observe the past with the same authority as it observes the present. Paleontology, therefore, is not a science on the level of physics and chemistry, whose laws can be demonstrated in the laboratory. It relies heavily on opinion and might even better be described as an art than a science.
He admitted these creatures’ fossils had not been found in his day, but hoped future excavations would turn them up.
They haven’t.
If evolutionary theory is true, the geological record should reveal innumerable transitional forms Darwin talked about. We shouldn’t find just a handful of questionable fossils glued together, or dyed to match from different species, but billions of intermediates validating the theory should be readily available. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete–not in developmental stages–the very first time they are seen. This is just what we would expect if animals were created, instead of evolved.
This is another strike (4) against Darwin, but since the subjectivity of the fossil record makes it more debatable, let’s call it a foul ball.
The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff
October 25th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Evidence from Taxonomy
What about living transitional forms? Taxonomy is the science that classifies plants and animals, grouping them by the characteristics they share. Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus pioneered the field, assigning organisms by class, order, genus and species. His system won universal acceptance. Linnaeus strongly opposed evolution. He saw that the larger divisions of living things–contrary to what evolution would predict–were distinctly divided without overlaps.
A rainbow may have many colors, but one doesn’t see solid red jump to solid orange. Gradations exist between them. Similarly, if all creatures have a common ancestor, we should not see distinctly divided groups, but living intermediates between them. Evolutionists acknowledge that the intermediates are missing, but say they must have become extinct. But if so, where are the fossils? Canadian biologist W.R. Thompson noted:
Little has changed since 1930, when Austin H. Clark, the Smithsonian Institution’s eminent zoologist declared:
The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff
October 25th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
The microevolution argument
Modern evolutionists, like Darwin himself, use breeding experiments as evidence of the theory of evolution. We are reminded that dog breeders have developed new breeds of dog; that racehorse owners have bred faster horses; that horticulturists have developed new plant varieties, etc. This is said to show living things change over time. Therefore, lots of time, lots of changes would occur, and over unlimited time, unlimited change would occur–i.e., fish to human-since nature conducts its own form of “breeding” by allowing only the fittest creatures to survive.
This argument is flawed. Here’s why.
Let’s talk dog breeding. Were the dog breeders of past centuries genetic scientists? Did they sit in labs inserting new genes into these dogs? No. They found dogs that already had characteristsics they liked, mated them with similar dogs, and bred them in a certain direction. In other words, they worked with pre-existing genetic information.
A species is normally endowed with a rich, diverse gene pool. Take man himself. There are over six billion human beings on earth, yet no two are exactly aliked (if one wants to get technical, it could be argued that identical twins are alike). The human race has a vast gene pool that permits all the variations we see.
It certainly is possible to change the general appearance of a species over time, by selecting out creatures with particular genes. But the change is confined to the limits of the gene pool. Horse breeders can generate fast horses by choosing the best, but they can’t convert the horse into a cow.
In nature’s parallel, if a group of frogs flee a forest fire, perhaps only the fastest hoppers escape. This could leave us with a strain of fast frogs. It’s a perfect example of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”. But this doesn’t mean that frogs could evolve into people. Nothing new has been created. All that has happened is that slower frogs have been eliminated–this is, in fact, a loss of genetic information, not a gain. We would not contest Darwin on the existence of natural selection or survival of the fittest in nature. But we would argue that the change possible does have limits.
One comic pointed out:
Shifts can and do occur within types of animals. These changes, based on diverse, preexisting genetic information, are called by some “microevolution”. But this is not evidence for unlimited transformation (macroevolution).
The thesis “if we get a little change over a little time, then we get a lot of change over a lot of time” does not hold up. Suppose a girl, dreaming of Olympic glory, learned to ice skate. The first week, she finds she can jump to a height of one foot and land on her skates. The second week, she finds she can leap two feet. The third week, she can jump three feet. Can we conclude from this that after 100 weeks, she will be able to jump 100 feet? No, the law of gravity will strictly limit how high she can get. Likewise, animals are also restricted in how much change they can make–by the limits of their gene pool.
Luther Burbank, the famed American plant breeder, said:
Simple bacteria can produce another generation in a matter of minutes. Yet Alan H. Linton, emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Bristol, noted in 2001:
To change a bacterium into a fish into a frog into a reptile into a mammal into a man, would require that each type of creature largely rewrite its gene pool and replace it with a new one. Evolutionists contend that “beneficial mutations” would allow an animal to exceed the boundaries of its genetic makeup. But as we have seen, mutations do not introduce new genetic information; the changes they cause involve informational losses.
The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff
October 25th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
Evidence from Molecular Biology
According to Darwinism, fish evolved into amphibians, which then evolved into reptiles, which then evolved into mammals. Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton studied these different animals on a molecular level, and found no evidence for the sequence. In his book, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, Denton analyzes various molecular structures, such as that of cytochrome C, a protein involved in producing cellular energy. It is found in organisms ranging from bacteria to man. Based on cytochrome C, amphibians are just as distant from fish as people are. In other words, on a molecular level, amphibians are not close cousins of fish. Denton writes:
Basically, I would wager you have not one single coherent argument against any of this.
Let’s review.
*Mutations, the supposed building blocks of evolution, are never actually observed to create higher genetic information.
*Cells are far too complex to have originated from a chance arrangement of chemicals.
*The human body has features, such as blood clotting and the immune system (among hundreds of others), that are irreducibly complex, and cannot have evolved.
*The fossil record reveals animals complete when first seen and thus better supports creation than evolution.
*Taxonomy shows a lack of intermediates between the major divisions of living creatures.
*On a molecular level, there is no evidence for the evolutionary sequence.
*Common sense argues against evolution.
This is enough to conclusively call “strike three” on the theory of evolution.
The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff
October 25th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Cao - I do surprise alot of people quite often; very nice poem BTW!
People can talk all they want about that idiot Darwin; Science; etc … one thing about it — everyone was “Created in God’s image”.
It’s interesting too, when I ask people — “Who do you think controls your very next breath”?
I just smile at most of the idiotic responses I get!
October 25th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
My point is…that science DOES support Intelligent Design…and DOES support creationism.
Science is supposed to examine the available evidence, postulate theories, critique those theories, revise the theories, etc., to arrive at reasonable answers. When someone finds a flaw in a scientific theory, the theory is supposed to be withdrawn & revised. But that doesn’t happen with the Theory of Evolution. Its proponents just ignore the problems & forge ahead, insisting that nothing else be taught.
A few years ago, the National Academy of Sciences issues an “Affirmation of Inquiry and Expression” that stated:
Science is about the truth, and it neither fears nor suppresses the search for it.
October 25th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Argumentum ad hominem. You know better than that, Cao.
Ah. Weston-Broome’s “Hitler based his ideas on Darwinism” claim. It’s ****. Learn your history.
“Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.” Also ****. Start checking on whether the talking points you’ve been fed have been answered before you repeat them, mmmmkay?
October 25th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Argumentum ad hominem. You know better than that, Cao.
Ah. Weston-Broome’s “Hitler based his ideas on Darwinism” claim. It’s ****. Learn your history.
“Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.” Also ****. Start checking on whether the talking points you’ve been fed have been answered before you repeat them, mmmmkay?
October 25th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Argumentum ad hominem. You know better than that, Cao.
Ah. Weston-Broome’s “Hitler based his ideas on Darwinism” claim. It’s ****. Learn your history.
“Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.” Also ****. Start checking on whether the talking points you’ve been fed have been answered before you repeat them, mmmmkay?
October 25th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
I’ll have to aggree with you on that Cao. It was science that led me (or rather convinced me) that God existed in the first place (to my horror) which is why I don’t understand why athiests refuse to look at the large holes in their theory (one being the lack of transitional forms) and test whether their faith can stand the laws of science.
Perhaps it isn’t so much they disbelieve in God, it’s that they do not want to believe that he exists at all costs.
October 25th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
boohoo Michael Swain, Winston Winters, both cowards with no websites, who–quite interestingly enough–spit out identical phlegm- lol…if that’s all you’ve got, it’s really lame. That’s not “ad hominem”, I just provided all kinds of evidence–scientific evidence– and not merely “stuff that was fed to me”. I’m not going to play stupid semantics and definitional games here with you.
Since you have no coherent response, (e.g., It’s ****–with no proof that it’s ****–so that’s just your opinion and …need I remind you opinions are like ********–everyone has one. So what were you crying about? Ad hominem about my calling you clueless????? bwahahahaha
:grin:) as I suspected you wouldn’t, I’m just going to flick you like a bugger off my finger.
Yep, Darnell, that’s precisely the conclusion many people have arrived at–from the scientific point of view rather than mindless brainless brainwashed point of view that allows no other evidence in.
Science, as I said above, is about the truth, and it neither fears nor suppresses the search for it.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:33 am
Paul Lemoine, who was the president of the Geological Society of France and director of the Natural History Museum, Paris, stated:
And I’m sorry people, the whining of the leftists who call what I’m saying “****” with absolutely no evidence to back it up is absolutely hilarious to me, that’s why I left that stuff here. It’s so incredibly pathetic that a bunch of losers would hold on to a meme from the 1800’s in spite of all the scientific advances that have come along since then.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously generate from chemicals, or one kind of animal transform into another, or mutations generate true biological advances, or complex biochemical systems evolve. That any of these things ever happened at all requires faith by the Darwinist and for that reason, some people consider evolution better characterized as a religion rather than a science.
This is why an alternative should be taught in schools; acknowledging that it’s just a theory–and there are other schools of thought on the matter. The fact that they can’t come up with anything beyond vestigial organs (disproven), Piltdown man (disproven), four-winged fruitflies (disproven) and other recycled trash just proves the incredible flimsiness of the theory when put under modern scientific scrutiny.
October 27th, 2005 at 7:04 am
I highly recommend to anybody seeking truth that they read any of the works by Hugh Ross. He takes a sober look at both science and the Bible and brilliantly joins the two. On the other hand, if you have an agenda, you may not want to read his works.
October 27th, 2005 at 7:24 am
There are a lot of great books out there on the subject, but the proponents of the old theory from the 1800’s discount them.
Tornado in the Junkyard: The relentless myth of Darwinism
The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined (Paperback)
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design
Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute)
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong
The extraordinary story of why fewer and fewer scientists are atheists
The Privileged Planet (dvd)
From Darwin to Hitler: How Darwinism led to the Holocaust
3-Book Set: Refuting Evolution; Scopes: Creation On Trial; Dinosaurs: The Lost World and You by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D; R.M. Cornelius Ph.D, John Morris Ph.D
Creation Geology
Bones of Contention
Buried Alive
Climates before and after the Genesis Flood
Design and origins Astronomy
Evolution: A theory in crisis
Evolution: The Fossils Say No
Refuting Evolution Volume 1
Refuting Evolution Set-Vol. 1 & 2
Refuting Evolution Volume 2
Scientific Creationism 2nd Ed.
The Human Body: An Intelligent Design
Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.