New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

That is untrue.

I don't trust anyone's word for anything. I trust objective evidence and you've produced none that can support your claim that macro-evolution is unexplained by science.

I, and others, on the other hand, have produced plenty of objective evidence.

I am pretty sure most of us here understand why you don't see.

No.

Really,no one has ever observed Macro-evolution but you believe what they say ?

Observed? Sure they have. So have you.

What has been oberved can be termed Micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution



Claim: CB901
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source: Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6. Response:


Creation Wiki response: (Talk Origins quotes in blue.)



1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


It's remarkable that evolutionists do not see the faith that their worldview requires. They claim they have evidence in Speciation, which is not evidence for universal common descent in any shape or form. Then when asked for observational evidence for the theory of evolution (i.e. change beyond the kind barrier) they claim that would disprove Darwinian Evolution! It has been demonstrated, as far as the evidence goes, that minor change sometimes referred to as micro-evolution does not lead to evolution on a large scale.



2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


The evidences presented in that essay are things such as vestigial structures and developmental biology which are not evidence for evolution. See True Origin for a thorough rebuttal of this essay written by Ashby Camp. Furthermore, there are some major problems with macro-evolution:
Evidence for such an occurrence is lacking in the fossil record.
Common structures can support a common designer thesis just as well as one of common ancestry.
Macroevolution is implausible, proteins evolving in small increments fits the evidence, crossing the large gaps is not realistic.(Plaisted 2005)



3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.


Very true, but it proves nothing close to universal common descent. Creationists would agree that speciation has been observed, but that is not what the debate is about. Walter Remine comments:

In creation-evolution debates, “evolution” isn’t mere ‘change in gene frequencies.’ Unless context indicates otherwise, it refers, ultimately, to naturalistic molecules-to-man transformation – anything less involves creation. “Macroevolution” makes the large-scale transformation fully explicit.

Please see Five major evolutionist misconceptions for more information.



4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


Micro-evolution is observed, but there are limits to the variation.

1.) An observational limit which we see all the time, dogs always produce dogs, cows always produce cows, etc.

2.) Original amount of information available: From the original starting point information is only lost and not added. Mutations occur which scramble the existing DNA and over the years certain traits are selected and passed down. As this process occurs information is lost until there can be no more variation because there is nothing to select from. This creates a natural barrier that prevents evolutionary change on a large scale.



5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.


Detailed series at the following link deals with this issue in depth. Transitional forms

Sources

Answers in Genesis

True Origin

Creation perspective

NMSR

Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 130

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolutionist from talk origins admits to it and so do other reputable scientist you're a victim of the likes of dawkins.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I see, so when i get older and wiser I will then believe that T-Rex was a leaf eater and fitting every dinosaur and animal that's ever lived on to a 450 foot wooden boat is perfectly rational?

Well, maybe I will if Alzheimer's ever kicks in.

It's too bad you take the opinion of philosophy bloggers more seriously than the facts from your own university's scientists.

I am not sure what you will believe,but it's called maturing.

I worked in the field all my life since college.

What did you find in your studies and experiments that proved to you T-Rex wasn't a carnivore?

That one is based on my beliefs.

I believe they did not eat meat until after the fall of adam.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No more smoke screens just address my question.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, your theory is that God does and did pretty much all, right?

Yep.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I am not sure what you will believe,but it's called maturing.

I worked in the field all my life since college.

What did you find in your studies and experiments that proved to you T-Rex wasn't a carnivore?

That one is based on my beliefs.

I believe they did not eat meat until after the fall of adam.

So you think as I'll mature and grow older than I will acquire a belief, a belief that requires me to ignore a host of scientific facts?


I have a little more faith in myself.

 

[Si modo]

YWC, your theory is that God does and did pretty much all, right?

Yep.

Thanks for answering.

That is a non-falsifiable theory, thus it is non-scientific. Such a theory is unsuitable for a scientific discussion, by definition. There is nothing scientific about it.

Thus, it is irrelevant in this topic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because science is being drug into it, science of course never proving or disproving the existence of a god.


The reason YWC hates science, is because many different scientific fields have proven parts of the Bible to be impossible and downright crazy. So he's going to continue his own personal war against science until he's pushing up daisies.

Hold on a second pal,don't speak for me, you speak for yourself.

I can speak on your view of science based on all the posts of yours I've read, it's why you're constantling battling against science.

I only battle science being taught as fact when it is only a theory and things within the theory that never have been observed or demonstrated. Is that science ? science is not putting a creature back together with plaster, with very little bone, especially when the creature has never been seen to know what it looked like. That is leaving science and going to speclation and imagination as proof. When a scientist say's 4.6 billion years ago he just left science went to speculation.

 

[Si modo]

Hold on a second pal,don't speak for me, you speak for yourself.

I can speak on your view of science based on all the posts of yours I've read, it's why you're constantling battling against science.

I only battle science being taught as fact when it is only a theory and things within the theory that never have been observed or demonstrated. Is that science ? science is not putting a creature back together with plaster, with very little bone, especially when the creature has never been seen to know what it looked like. That is leaving science and going to speclation and imagination as proof. When a scientist say's 4.6 billion years ago he just left science went to speculation.

No, the scientist did not.


You, however, are discussing your theory as if it had anything to do with science. It doesn't.

Apple and oranges.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What did you find in your studies and experiments that proved to you T-Rex wasn't a carnivore?

That one is based on my beliefs.

I believe they did not eat meat until after the fall of adam.

So you think as I'll mature and grow older than I will acquire a belief, a belief that requires me to ignore a host of scientific facts?


I have a little more faith in myself.

I don't deny he ate meat,i deny he was this predator you believe he was. But i differ with you when he began eating meat.

His teeth were not sunk into the jaw enough to support attacking other dinosaurs and ripping meat out of them.

But mostly because nothing ate meat until after the fall of adam.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, your theory is that God does and did pretty much all, right?

Yep.

Thanks for answering.

That is a non-falsifiable theory, thus it is non-scientific. Such a theory is unsuitable for a scientific discussion, by definition. There is nothing scientific about it.

Thus, it is irrelevant in this topic.

Look at the score card for predictions of intelligent design vs naturalism.

by Rich Deem

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone. For many things, especially in the arena of biology, it is difficult or impossible at this time to generate any kind of statistical model to even do the test. However, this will not always be the case. The biological model for ID will stand or fall on the basis of genetics. There is a certain statistical probability for mutations, which is absolutely known. There are also known genetic sequences that differ from one another. Evolution claims that all life is descended from previous life, and the fossil record gives us the approximate time at which species appeared. Statistical calculations can be made on the basis of divergence. Complete genomic sequencesare just beginning to be completed. There will always be some unknowns or uncertainties, so the level of ID will have to be pretty good to be accepted by the general scientific community.

Is Intelligent Design (ID) a valid scientific theory?

ID theory has been criticized on the following basis:
1.No model has been presented
2.Since there is no model, there are no predictions from the theory
3.No refinement of the theory is possible

In an attempt to be all-inclusive, most ID proponents have failed to
1.define the Intelligent Designer
2.reject young-earth creationism

A nebulous theory can never be tested. The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test. Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the Designer. Because of the failure to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism, ID has been labeled as a repackaging of scientific creationism. Deceptive or unsupported "science" cannot be allowed to be part of ID or the entire concept will be discredited.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.
1.Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2.Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3.Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4.SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.

Characteristics of a successful ID model

A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:
1.The intelligent Designer is identified
2.The model is detailed
3.The model can be refined
4.The model is testable and falsifiable
5.The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA ( mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA(see Evolutionary Descent of Mankind Theory- Disproved by Molecular Biology).

Characteristics of Christian supernaturalism

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism



Characteristic

Anti-Supernatural

Supernatural




Cosmology

eternal multiverse

single transcendent beginning



Time

infinite space time foam

finite duration



Laws of physics

breakdown at 10-43 sec.

fixed



Fine tuning

explained by infinite # universes

extreme fine tuning is designed



Probability

only likely events will occur

creation involved miracles that could not occur by chance


The table above gives some of the characteristics of Christian supernaturalism compared to naturalism. Contrary to atheistic assertions, the Christian ID model does not claim that the universe is perfect. The idea that a perfect God would not create a universe less than "perfect" is logically flawed. The biblical model states that the universe is "flawed" - for the purpose of allowing humans the choice to love or reject God. The model also states that this imperfect universe will be replaced by a perfect universe once its purpose has been fulfilled. Those humans who chose to love God will be perfected by their own permission into sinless, loving creatures. Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place? Forcing creatures to be perfect would abrogate their free will and prevent them expressing true love, since they would have no choice. Humans who want to spend eternity with God chose now to give up their ability to sin or be unloving in the future new universe, where no such choices will exist.

Predictions of the Christian ID model compared to naturalism

Because of the nature of the laws of physics, it seems likely that none of the characteristics in the above table can be absolutely known. However, there are a number of predictions that each theory makes, which can be tested by further study of the universe and life on the earth.

What are some specific predictions made by the two models?

Predictions of Naturalism vs. Christian ID



Characteristic

Anti-Supernatural

Christian ID




1.

Single transcendent beginning

will be refuted

evidence will increase



2.

Fine tuning

"design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge

more examples of extreme fine tuning will be found, indicating true design



3.

Uniqueness of earth

many rocky planets with oceans and continents will be found

earth-like planets will be found to be rare or non-existent



4.

Existence of life in the universe

life will be found to be abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics

extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and advanced life will be found only on earth



5.

Prebiotic chemistry

a naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical pathways and replicative molecules will be found

the universe was designed to support living systems, but their creation required ID by God



6.

Origin of Life

Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria)

Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex



7.

New designs in nature

Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common

No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight"



8.

Mass extinction events

Slow recovery

No restrictions on "recovery" period as new species are created


What is the scorecard so far? Science tells us that:
1.There is no evidence for more than one universe or more than one creation event.
2.Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10120.
3.Rocky planets matching the general characteristics of planet earth have been few. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.
4.No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful.
5.It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for origin of any living system.
6.Naturalistic synthesis of either biochemical nor replicative pathways have not been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.
7.Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.
8.Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.

Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

 

[Si modo]

Yep.

Thanks for answering.

That is a non-falsifiable theory, thus it is non-scientific. Such a theory is unsuitable for a scientific discussion, by definition. There is nothing scientific about it.

Thus, it is irrelevant in this topic.

Look at the score card for predictions of intelligent design vs naturalism.

by Rich Deem

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?


....

Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

In case you didn't notice, the first line of the piece acknowledges the fact that ID is non-falsifiable, thus nonscientific.

There is nothing scientific about it. It is irrelevant to science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What charade?

Your theory is non-falsifiable and is, by definition, not scientific.

The Newtonian laws are falsifiable, thus scientific, by definition.

The charade that horizontal gene transfer created communication.

HGT 'created' nothing. HGT exists and takes place. HGT explains macro-evolution.

Now, what is your theory? That God explains macro-evolution? I asked before, and I don't think you've yet answered.

Well i don't recall who it was, maybe it was drock ,but he said you answered saying that HGT was the source that brought about the genetic code,unless i misunderstood him. If that was not your intent please disregard , if it was please explain how and why.

My major being molecular biology, i would be very interested in what you have to say.

 

[Si modo]

The charade that horizontal gene transfer created communication.

HGT 'created' nothing. HGT exists and takes place. HGT explains macro-evolution.

Now, what is your theory? That God explains macro-evolution? I asked before, and I don't think you've yet answered.

Well i don't recall who it was, maybe it was drock ,but he said you answered saying that HGT was the source that brought about the genetic code,unless i misunderstood him. If that was not your intent please disregard , if it was please explain how and why.

My major being molecular biology, i would be very interested in what you have to say.

I don't understand what you mean by "HGT was the source that brought about the genetic code", so as I don't know what that means, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

 

[Montrovant]

That one is based on my beliefs.

I believe they did not eat meat until after the fall of adam.

So you think as I'll mature and grow older than I will acquire a belief, a belief that requires me to ignore a host of scientific facts?


I have a little more faith in myself.

I don't deny he ate meat,i deny he was this predator you believe he was. But i differ with you when he began eating meat.

His teeth were not sunk into the jaw enough to support attacking other dinosaurs and ripping meat out of them.

But mostly because nothing ate meat until after the fall of adam.

WTF?

 

[Dr.Drock]

HGT 'created' nothing. HGT exists and takes place. HGT explains macro-evolution.

Now, what is your theory? That God explains macro-evolution? I asked before, and I don't think you've yet answered.

Well i don't recall who it was, maybe it was drock ,but he said you answered saying that HGT was the source that brought about the genetic code,unless i misunderstood him. If that was not your intent please disregard , if it was please explain how and why.

My major being molecular biology, i would be very interested in what you have to say.

I don't understand what you mean by "HGT was the source that brought about the genetic code", so as I don't know what that means, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

Nor did I, I'll bump the part of the convo he's talking about.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thanks for answering.

That is a non-falsifiable theory, thus it is non-scientific. Such a theory is unsuitable for a scientific discussion, by definition. There is nothing scientific about it.

Thus, it is irrelevant in this topic.

Look at the score card for predictions of intelligent design vs naturalism.

by Rich Deem

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?


....

Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

In case you didn't notice, the first line of the piece acknowledges the fact that ID is non-falsifiable, thus nonscientific.

There is nothing scientific about it. It is irrelevant to science.

I believe that was arguments from your side.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.
1.Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2.Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3.Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4.SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?


Creation model.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."



This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.





"This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto."
"Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."



Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:





The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.



I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

II. Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.





"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."



III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26



"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

 

[Dr.Drock]

No..............he agreed with my post that showed evolution/natural selection/mutation was the reason gonorrhea had acquired pieces of human DNA.



So he's saying they're right, you're the one saying those who don't deny science are wrong.

Only some of their explanations. Let's not get derailed here.

Well if he understands the theory of evolution, he would understand that the Neo believer needs new information for Macro-evolution to be possible .and he would know they try to prove that information comes from mutations mistakes in the DNA.

Horizontal gene transfer takes care of that.

Here's what he's talking about, I said pieces of DNA had been acquired, not created.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Only some of their explanations. Let's not get derailed here.

Well if he understands the theory of evolution, he would understand that the Neo believer needs new information for Macro-evolution to be possible .and he would know they try to prove that information comes from mutations mistakes in the DNA.

Horizontal gene transfer takes care of that.

Here's what he's talking about, I said pieces of DNA had been acquired, not created.

Ok Drock,

What are the origins of DNA ? we can all conclude DNA is information.

 

[Si modo]

Only some of their explanations. Let's not get derailed here.

Well if he understands the theory of evolution, he would understand that the Neo believer needs new information for Macro-evolution to be possible .and he would know they try to prove that information comes from mutations mistakes in the DNA.

Horizontal gene transfer takes care of that.

Here's what he's talking about, I said pieces of DNA had been acquired, not created.

Ah, thanks.

Yes, and that provides an explanation for macro-evolution.

Check that off the list.