The Waco Tribune published an opinion piece three weeks ago that I should have noted earlier. Trib columnist John Young noted that creationism isn’t science, and that generally creationists are not friends of science education (or any other education, sadly, not even Bible education).
Conditions surrounding Texas science standards, and education standards in general, have deteriorated very rapidly, with the chairman of the State Board of Education going on the warpath against mathematics, English and science teaching. For quick destruction to get the foolishness out of the way, one might hope he’ll go on the warpath against football and cheerleading. I’ve not had time to pass along all the sad details.
But then, not all crazies are stupid.
Earlier:
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Alas, that is what I get for typing a reply in haste before stepping out to lunch.
But I think we can both agree that certain aspects of the Scopes trial were highly suspect, such as the denial of entry what seems pretty critical evidence and the lack of proper cross examination.
LikeLike
Now, Matt, you’re traipsing onto my turf with your historiography!
Yes, I’m kidding! I would offer a different account of Scopes, BTW, but who the hell cares? Reckon EIF doesn’t cotton to the idea of being gawked at from behind the one-way glass by a lab-coated phenomenologist with a clipboard, but then perhaps EIF doesn’t dig that in scholarship there is not supposed to be any one-way, but only open exchange, as you’ve taken considerable pains to exemplify in this string.
LikeLike
evolution is still a theory not a fact
It’s a scientific theory which is, as I think I have already commented in these comments, is different to how most people use the term ‘theory’. It has been proven just as much as gravity or that germs cause disease. Both gravity and germs are classified as a scientific theory (just like evolution) or would you like to try to argue that disease is caused by little demons possessing people?
in the past they had more famous casses about evolution against creation and creation has come out on the top every time
Creation won in famous cases? Such as when? I guess they can not be very famous since I have never heard of them and none seem to come up on Google. On the other hand, just to use two quick examples, Creation and Intelligent Design were both rubbished at both the Scopes and Dover trials respectively.
LikeLike
evolution is still a theory not a fact in the past they had more famous casses about evolution against creation and creation has come out on the top every time but evolution is still a theory thank you for you input and i hope you have a delightfull time trying to get more controversy
yours truly:
EVOLUTION IS FASLE
The ANTIevolutionist
LikeLike
eif, I respect your Commission. Please retreat, regroup, then fight again. Fairly.
Matt, thank you for the answer. Of course I understand scientific rules, and consequently am glad that it is a discrete theory I can try to construe on the strength of no more than some Physical Antrho and 15 or so undergrad bio units from many years ago!
As Ed knows, my interests in the debate are essentially sociological, but your references to and answers concerning origins piqued my interest on the natural, as it were. I like to follow these discussion and watch for excesses, which sometimes go as far as magical thinking on the part of the unlikeliest, not just the likeliest, parties. It’s absolutely a goldmine for voyeurs in my field! But it’s no fun, and of no scholarly value, if I can’t follow the science. So thanks again.
I still think we should move toward a K-8 teaching force that can handle an integrated, continuous science curriculum, but that’s a mere sideshow vis-a-vis those of you in the thick of things just now.
LikeLike
like before you are going of on what you have said through what i have seen its flieing colors for me and and upsidown flag for you
LikeLike
By reading back up through the comments made by myself and various others before your arrival here …
Pretty much everything you said was shown to be wrong.
Your chosen sources were shown to have no credibility.
Your arguments were childish and dismissed with ease.
Your copied slabs of text countered with rather simple points.
In short, whatever stance you took, it was proven to be false and wrong through rather basic counters. While you also failed to bring forth any evidence that could stand up to even the simplest of counters.
LikeLike
i think maddoxx is a air head and doesint know what hes talkin about
LikeLike
i have been watching your argument and i think that (evolution is false)
is an incompetent creationist activist who doesnt know how to spell and is a terrible one at that
LikeLike
I HAVE AN INPORTANT QEUSTION TO ASK PLS ANSWER IT TRUTHFULLY
WHAT HAVE YOU PROVED WRONG!!
OF WHAT I HAVE SAID AND CITED
LikeLike
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/ad43
LikeLike
lol im not done
About half the size of a football field and 21 stories tall, the largest optical telescope ever constructed will use almost 1,000 mirrors to hunt for exoplanets–and maybe even unlock the secrets of spacetime
LikeLike
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/ad43
About half the size of a football field and 21 stories tall, the largest optical telescope ever constructed will use almost 1,000 mirrors to hunt for exoplanets–and maybe even unlock the secrets of spacetime
I’m envious because i wont it
LikeLike
And I’ll take your last post as an admission of defeat since your sources have been shown to be less than accurate, your arguments old and disproven while the slabs of text you copied and pasted … well, easily countered as being a load of nonsense through simple points.
Anything else you’d like to add?
LikeLike
As I have thought you are getting no where in this discussion but that it shows all of us that you are a cocky arrogant evolutionist who needs to go back into the books to see what he is actually saying while as my only problem is that I have spelling errors.
Yours truly:
Evolution is false
Your friendly combatant
LikeLike
You refer to equipment that is not even operational yet.
In case you failed to properly read such reports … yes, new and better technology is being developed which could, in theory, increase the chances of detecting life elsewhere in the universe.
However, as I stated, it is still in the planning stages and is years away from being operational yet.
The most advanced equipment humanity currently has for scanning the universe that is in operation currently are a handful of radio telescopes dotted about the globe and the Hubble Space Telescope. This equipment, while powerful, can still only barely (and indirectly) detect planetary bodies bigger than Jupiter.
Your poor research is showing again.
LikeLike
as i have thought you are getting no where in this disscusion but that it shows all of us that you are a cocky arrogant evolutionist who needs to go back into the books to see what he is actually saying while as my only problem is that i have spelling errors
yours truly
evolution is false
your friendly combatant
LikeLike
comming out 2 month ago scieintist have come out with a detecting radar that can prob farther than any other equiptment than has been created also a program that detects life as far as going around plantes starts etc to get its information it needs
popular science published
LikeLike
first of i would like to know what type of equitment you are talking about pls
LikeLike
have you ever heard of something called evolution well it has said that those few forms of life that could live would grow up and use that salt in a good way such such plants use no2 and convert it into no3 for their own use
You need to learn to comprehend text you read and then process what it says.
As has already been explained in this very comments section of this very blog entry, Abiogenesis needs to take place before Evolution even has the remotest of shots of doing its thing.
The conditions on Mars, as latest reports have concluded, while not outright hostile to it, were certainly far from ideal for Abiogenesis to take place.
LikeLike
No, it is not weird at all.
No one knows if there is life elsewhere in the Universe or not and even if there were, the chances of it being located in an area near enough to us for us to detect are so remote that you may as well believe Elvis is still alive and having a tea party with Tarzan in downtown New York.
Human technology, currently, is barely capable of detecting the presence of planets bigger than Jupiter around relatively nearby stars. Even then, they are not detected directly but instead by the gravitational affect they have on the afore mentioned stars.
Now, if we’re unable to detect planets in nearby systems … what do you think the chances of actually detecting life are?
Your copy/pasting techniques really are doing you no good at all, are they?
LikeLike
But new data from the opportunity rover, which has been wandering the surface of Mars for almost five years, suggests the water that once flowed into the craters and valleys of the planet was far too salty to support MOST forms of life. quote on quote
so some form of life might of been able to live
have you ever heard of something called evolution well it has said that those few forms of life that could live would grow up and use that salt in a good way such such plants use no2
and convert it into no3 for their own use
(natural selection)
(In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. This process causes populations of organisms to change over time. Inherited traits are the expression of genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms.)
thus saying that the microbes ameobas etc… would inherit better genes to be capable of living on mars
LikeLike
Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
and still no sighns of life kinda weird isn’t it
LikeLike
Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
For example, in 1999 the Hubble Space Telescope estimated that there were 125 billion galaxies in the universe, and recently with the new camera HST has observed 3,000 visible galaxies, which is twice as much as they observed before with the old camera. We’re emphasizing “visible” because observations with radio telescopes, infrared cameras, x-ray cameras, etc. would detect other galaxies that are not detected by Hubble. As observations keep on going and astronomers explore more of our universe, the number of galaxies detected will increase. For more about the Hubble Space Telescope, check out this web site:
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/
thats galaxies not planets not stars thats galaxies and you would think that one of thoes galaxies has at least one ONE planet able to support life
How many stars in a galaxy?
The best estimates suggest that the Milky Way contains about 500 thousand million stars and a total mass equivalent to 1.9 million million Suns.
Galaxies vary in size considerably. For example, giant elliptical galaxies may have up to 100 times the mass of the Milky Way (or the equivalent of 1900 million million Suns) whereas the recently discovered Ultra-Compact Dwarf galaxies may have just a few tens of millions of stars.
How many stars and galaxies in the universe? 7times10up to the 22nd power
LikeLike
With some rather convenient timing, here is a recent study which also completely counters your silly Mars argument. I’ll even link to a summarised news story so you might comprehend it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/16/2164485.htm
Evolutionists(YOU) just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing
Which is actually a matter not in the field of Evolution Biology. You may not have noticed but science is split up into various fields and experts in those various fields concentrate on their chosen discipline. Sometimes those fields even overlap a little (such as parts of chemistry and biology).
The supposed matter (ha!) of ‘matter from nothing’ is a matter (again, ha!) for physicists and quantum mathematicians and they’re actually making a great deal of progress in such – having constructed mathematical models which match all available evidence.
I suggest reading ‘A Brief History of Time’ by Stephen Hawking for more summarised information on such. It is a fascinating book.
LikeLike
Evolutionists(YOU) just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing*(BECAUSE YOU KNOW SOMETHING CANNOT EVOLVE FROM NOTHING). They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang” theory doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from SOMEWHERE.
“LOL”LOL”LOL”LOL”
P.S DUCT TAPE IS LIKE THE FORCE IT HAS A LIGHT SIDE AND A DARK SIDE AND HOLDS THE UNIVERSE TOGETHER(somethin to laugh about)
LikeLike
Your rather weak argument on Mars is silly.
Mars has never been able to support anything more than micro-organisms and maybe not even those. Why? Because it lies outside the so called golden zone, which marks the thin band measured from the sun where temperatures are neither too cold or too hot.
Yes, evidence suggests that Mars once had water on the surface but it’s past atmosphere chemistry is still unknown regarding it’s life supporting properties. Regardless, the entire point is made moot by the simple rebuttal that just because life CAN appear in a certain place, it does not mean that it WILL.
LikeLike
LIKE I SAID YOU CANT JUST SAY IT IS WRONG
Hypocritical, since you have also shown no evidence or actual arguments. You have done naught but copy/paste arguments from websites which have long been discredited by science. Dens of ignorance and idiocy.
SHOW ME EVIDENCE/SOURCE
You see, that will do no good in your eyes. I already provided a solid rebuttal of your rather odd ‘global flood’ claims but your response was (and I quote) “the site you gave me is false”. Which is supplying no counter evidence or arguments at all.
So, kindly tell me, why should I supply sources when your demonstrated reaction to such is akin to a toddler throwing a tantrum?
Still, to make my job easier, try the following link. All papers and findings included are all based solidly in science, peer reviewed and backed by a whole lot of evidence. In short, it’s an excellent evidence based summary of why the Theory of Evolution is pretty much dead on.
http://talkorigins.org/
LikeLike
Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the “spark” of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
LikeLike
OH SO NO YOU ARE CORRECTIONG A 15YEAR OLD BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR LAST RESOURCE BECASUE “YOU GOT SCHOOLED” (BY A YOUNGSTER)
BUT OOOOOOOOOOO HIS TYPING IS NOT SPEALED RIGHT SO HE’S WRONG
LOL
LikeLike
ARE YOU THE SCINETIST WHO COMES UP WITH THESE LUDACRISE THINGS THAT SAYS OOOOHHH I DONT LIKE THAT I SAY ITS FALSE THEIR ITS FALSE PEOPLE BECAUSE I SAID SO
LikeLike
And kindly stop copy/pasting slabs of text from websites.
If you can’t even so much as put arguments into your own words, then just stop bothering and you’re proving nothing more than you know how to use basic word processing skills.
Which, considering your lack of punctuation and spelling, is rather doubtful anyhow.
LikeLike
LIKE I SAID YOU CANT JUST SAY IT IS WRONG SHOW ME EVIDENCE/SOURCE
BUT YOU JUST POP UP AND SAY “aahem what you say is wrong because i said so so that is how i disprove you hahahahaha i win” THAT WILL NOT PASS WHITH PEOPLE WHO ARE READING WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY SO BEFORE YOU SAY IT AND ACT LIKE AN IDIOT SITE YOU RESOURCES
BECAUSE THIS IS A FAIL TO REJECT “FACT”
LikeLike
Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
And what you copy pasted there is also just plain false. Dozens of scientific studies have shown that all manner of environmental conditions can influence the the gender of a child.
Whatever your source is, they really have no clue what they’re on about.
LikeLike
You’re still copy pasting arguments which have been long disproved and generally shot down. Which is not only intellectually lazy but also dishonest as you’re portraying long dead arguments as some sort of honest defence.
Fact – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
Wrong. Half a wing is still better than no wing at all. A small wing and heavier body are still extremely useful for slowing falls from heights and also gliding as already seen in many examples of nature. There are many examples of flightless birds, such as the Emu, which fossil records show had ancestors that used to have the ability of full flight but instead took the evolutionary niche of considerable ground speed instead.
Fact – Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
Again, wrong. The number of transitional species identified through fossil and genetic records are many indeed. But then, I dare say you’re bringing in text from the Discovery Institute who seem to be wilfully ignorant of such evidence.
For example: In a recent radio interview, Dr Simmons of the DI flatly stated there was no evidence at all which showed a progression from frontal nostrils to blowholes in the fossil record or that whales evolved at all. PZ Myers, the scientist Simmons was debating, was then able to instantly list a number of such transitional species/fossils which proved Simmons completely ignorant and wrong on the topic.
Sadly, ignorance seems to be the calling card and state of normality at AiG and DI.
LikeLike
FACT- DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
LikeLike
FACT-Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
LikeLike
FACT-Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
LikeLike
Hm. Odd. Second half got cut off. Anyhow…
producing an irreducible level of complexity
Irreducible complexity is a concept that has no evidence to support it. None. No cases of it have ever been found in nature despite the desperate attempts by groups such as AiG and the Discovery Institute. The concept itself, if it were true, would disprove the Theory of Evolution but it is still completely without support via evidence.
It is also a concept already addressed by Charles Darwin back in his original research and is considered, by most, as a waste of time.
Read a book before you copy paste something.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Also hypocritical since the only things I have copy/pasted have been URLs to requested information while you have obviously started copy/pasting slabs of texts from AiG and it’s affiliated websites. The complete change in writing styles is a dead giveaway.
LikeLike
Fact – Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
LikeLike
Fact – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
Help! I can’t fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
LikeLike
THIS STATMENT
FAIL TO REJECT
REJECT
LikeLike
Scientific Fact No. 1 – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
external image
Help! I can’t fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
Scientific Fact No. 2 – Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
external image
Scientific Fact No. 3 – Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
Scientific Fact No. 4 – Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
Scientific Fact No. 5 – DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
external image
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
Scientific Fact No. 6 – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
Scientific Fact No. 7 – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
Scientific Fact No. 8 – Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang” theory doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
Scientific Fact No. 9 – Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the “spark” of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
Scientific Fact No. 10 – Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
LikeLike
The scoffers will immediately dismiss the source, but some who would like to discuss this would maybe like to dispute the information presented. If the source is absolute bunk then the brilliant minds here should be able to dismiss these ‘theories’ outright no?
I would like to do it this way if you don’t mind, Pick a number and then discuss only that number in your reply. Please title each of your responses with the number so readers can follow.
Please lets keep it civil, (ME INCLUDED)
The body and soul of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin’s theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.
Fact – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
Help! I can’t fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
Fact – Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
Fact – Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
Fact – Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
Fact – DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
Fact – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
Fact – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
Fact – Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang” theory doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
Fact- Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the “spark” of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
Fact – Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
PLEASE LEAVE ALL THE PERSONAL JABS YOU ARE TRYING TO PULL TO YOURSELLF
LikeLike
hear o people i am going to explain evolution “FALSE”
The scoffers will immediately dismiss the source, but some who would like to discuss this would maybe like to dispute the information presented. If the source is absolute bunk then the brilliant minds here should be able to dismiss these ‘theories’ outright no?
The body and soul of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin’s theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.
Fact – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
Help! I can’t fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
FACT
Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
FACT
Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animal
FACT
Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
FACT
DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
FACT
Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
FACT
Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
FACT
Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang” theory doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
FACT
Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the “spark” of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
FACT
Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
FACT
sorry but evolution is wrong
LikeLike
producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
Irreducible complexity is an argument from design which has been unproven. No examples of Irreducible complexity has ever been found, despite the best efforts of numerous ID proponents.
Probably the most well known ID proponent, Behe, was found to be woefully ignorant of the field he claimed expertise in at the Dover trial. The transcript for which is quite an interesting read, where Behe is forced to admit that he has not read rather vital research papers which proved his entire stance wrong and that under his own definition of science, astrology would also have to be counted.
Read a book before you copy paste something.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Especially since that since you’re clearly copy/pasting slabs of text from AiG or some other affiliated website whereas the only thing I have copy/pasted have been URLs for links to requested information.
LikeLike
Abiogenesis is a scientific theory (and please note that science uses the word ‘theory’ in a way which does not mean ‘random guess’ most people seem to think it is).
It has considerable evidence to support it as seen here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Jerry Bergman
I won’t even read further than that since Bergman has long since been held as being a discredited hack, whose understanding of the Theory of Evolution is only marginally better than that of the criminal known as Ken Ham (both people belong to Answers in Genesis, which itself is an organisation generally laughed at for getting so many things wrong and presenting so many falsehoods and misinformation that it is simply irrational).
Bergman, specifically, has a poor academic record and refuses to acknowledge when his arguments have been found to be false after being peer reviewed – which has simply led to him stop submitting his articles for peer review and claiming they’re right anyhow. Which is simply about as unscientific as you can get.
In short, you’ll have to do a lot better than the poor ignorant people at AiG (or the Discovery Institute for that matter) if you’re looking for evidence.
LikeLike
However, I fail to see how it is an argument for creationism (true) but this proves that abiogenesis has fail to prove null hypothesis
The problem is that there is no other scientific explanation for the origin of life. It had to be either abiogenesis or a creator (which is not a scientific explanation).
A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is ?What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?? Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions,
funny that organisms exist with only a few thousand genes or even much more less. Where are the multimillon parts then?
producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
Life has a hierarchical and modular complexity.
Read a book before you copy paste something.
LikeLike
eif, Matt is referring me to a specialized field within the Life Sciences, and I’m asking him for his sense of how to characterize that field, Abiogenesis. Please Wiki it or something if you like. I’m a social scientist who, like most, is fascinated with investigations of the “originary”, as some philologists put it. On human origins, if that’s what interests you, I recommend that you consult The History and Geography of Human Genes.
LikeLike
i hope this can tell you otherwise im sorry to disapoint you HUGHVIC
LikeLike
Jerry Bergman demonstrates that empirical science fails to lend credibility to the popular evolutionary assumption that life could have arisen as a product …
Every so often, someone comes up with the statement ‘the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible.
Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life. It can be viewed as a special form of spontaneous generation
“life from no life” proven false many times
abiogenesis simply means getting life from non-life (witch can not be done)
Even as Aristotelian abiogenesis was being disproven
Encyclopedia entries notwithstanding, it is both too early to declare abiogenesis research as being incapable
THey feel that only a supernatural being could have done it…and i agree. … Well, if you could prove that Abiogenesis is false, then I guess that would …
Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today, the term is primarily used in the context of biology and the origin of life. Some confusion exists on this topic, because early concepts of abiogenesis were later proven to be incorrect. These early concepts of spontaneous generation (referred to here as “Aristotelian abiogenesis” for clarity) held that living organisms could be “born” out of decaying organic substances, et cetera, which we now know does not occur.
If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
The most critical gap that must be explained is that between life and non-life because
Cells and organisms are very complex… [and] there is a surprising uniformity among living things. We know from DNA sequence analyses that plants and higher animals are closely related, not only to each other, but to relatively simple single-celled organisms such as yeasts. Cells are so similar in their structure and function that many of their proteins can be interchanged from one organism to another. For example, yeast cells share with human cells many of the central molecules that regulate their cell cycle, and several of the human proteins will substitute in the yeast cell for their yeast equivalents! (Alberts, 1992, p. xii).
Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
Acknowledgements: I want to thank Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Wayne Frair, Ph.D., and John Woodmorappe, M.A., for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
——————————————————————————–
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Northwest State College, Archbold, OH 43502-9542
Received 24 August 1999; Revised 19 October 1999.
——————————————————————————–
References
CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly.
CENTJ: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.
Alberts, Bruce. 1992. Introduction to Understanding DNA and gene cloning by Karl Drlica. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Asimov, Isaac. 1962. The genetic code. The Orion Press, New York.
Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s black box. Basic Books, New York.
Bergman, Jerry. 1993a. A brief history of the theory of spontaneous generation. CENTJ 7(1):73–81.
———. 1993b. Panspermia—The theory that life came from outer space. CENTJ 7 (1):82–87.
———. 1998. The transitional form problem. CRSQ 35(3):134–148.
Black Jacquelyn G. 1998. Microbiology principles and applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cairns-Smith, Alexander G. 1985. The first organisms. Scientific American 252(6):90–100.
Conklin, Edwin Grant. 1928. Embryology and evolution in Creation by evolution. Frances Mason (editor). Macmillan, New York.
Coppedge, James, F. 1973. Evolution: Possible or impossible? Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Corliss, William R. 1993. Early life surprisingly diverse. Science Frontiers. 88:2.
Darwin, Charles. 1900. Origin of species. Reprint of sixth edition PF Collier, New York.
Davies, Paul. 1999. Life force. New Scientist. 163(2204): 27–30.
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. Climbing mount improbable. W.W. Norton, New York.
de Duve, Christian. 1995. Vital dust: Life as a cosmic imperative. Basic Books, New York.
Dembski, William A. 1998. The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Denton, Michael. 1986. Evolution: A theory in crisis. Adler and Adler, Bethesda, MD.
———. 1998. Nature’s destiny; how the laws of biology reveal purpose in the universe. The Free Press, New York.
Dover, Gabby. 1999. Looping the evolutionary loop. Review of the origins of life: from the birth of life to the origin of language. Nature. 399:217–218.
Fraser, Claire M., Jeannine Gocayne and Owen White. 1995. The minimal gene complement of mycoplasma genitalium. Science 270(5235):397–403.
Galtier, Nicolas, Nicolas Tourasse and Manolo Gouy. 1999. A nonhyperthermophilic common ancestor to extant life forms. Science. 283 (5399):220–221.
Gish, Duane T. 1995. Evolution: The fossils still say no. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
Gould, Stephen. 1989. Wonderful life. W. W. Norton, New York.
Haeckel, Ernst. 1905. The wonders of life. Harper and Brothers, New York.
———. 1925. The history of creation: natürliche schöpfungsgeschte. D. Appleton, New York.
Hanegraaff, Hank. 1998. The face that demonstrates the farce of evolution. Word Publishing, Nashville, TN.
Horgan, John. 1996. The end of science. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Jenkins-Jones, Sara (editor). 1997. Random House Webster’s dictionary of scientists. RandomHouse, New York.
Kajander, E.O. and Ciftcioglu, . 1998. Nanobacteria: An alternative mechanism for pathogenic intra- and extracellular calcification and stone formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(14):8274–8279.
Lahav, Noam. 1999. Biogenesis: Theories of life’s origin. Oxford University, New York.
Levy, Matthew and Stanley L. Miller. 1998. The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 95: 7933–7938.
Lubenow, Marvin. 1992. Bones of contention. Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, MI.
———. 1994. Human fossils. CRSQ, 31:70.
MacAyeal, Doug. 1995. Challenging an ice-core paleothermometer. Science. 270:444–445.
Meyer, Stephen. 1996. The origin of life and the death of materialism. The Intercollegiate Review, Spring, pp. 24–33.
Moore, John. 1976. Documentation of absence of transitional forms. CRSQ, 13(2):110–111.
Newman, James (editor). 1967. The Harper encyclopedia of science. Harper and Row, New York.
Pigliucci, Massimo. 1999. Where do we come from? A humbling look at the biology of life’s origin.” Skeptical Inquirer, 23(5):21–27.
Rodabaugh, David. 1976. Probability and missing transitional forms. CRSQ 13(2):116–118.
Sagan, Carl and Jonathan Leonard. 1972. Planets. Time Life Books, New York.
Schopf, J. William. 1993. Microfossils of the early Archean, Apex chert; new evidence of the antiquity of life. Science 260:640–646.
———. 1999. Cradle of life: The discovery of the earth’s earliest fossils. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Shapiro, Robert. 1986. Origins; A skeptics guide to the creation of life on earth. Summit Books, New York.
Simpson, Sarah. 1999. Life’s first scalding steps. Science News, 155(2):24–26.
Spetner, Lee. 1997. Not a chance! Shattering the modern theory of evolution. Judaica Press, New York.
Standen, Anthony. 1950. Science is a sacred cow. E. P. Dutton, New York.
Stenger, Victor. 1998. Anthropic design and the laws of physics. Reports: National Center for Science Education, 18(3):8–12.
Thaxton, Charles, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. 1984. The mystery of life’s origin; reassessing current theories. Philosophical Library, New York.
Trefil, James. 1992. 1001 things everyone should know about science. Doubleday, New York.
Vogel, Gretchen. 1999. RNA study suggests cool cradle of life. Science. 283(5399):155–156.
Wynn, Charles M. and Arthur W. Wiggins. 1997. The five biggest ideas in science. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Yockey, Hubert P. 1992. Information theory and molecular biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 336.
Editor’s Note
The Quarterly has published numerous items on the same subject as Dr. Bergman’s article. Readers should find the following references of interest.
Armstrong, H. 1964. The possibility of the artificial creation of life. CRSQ 1(3):11.
———. 1967. Is DNA only a material cause? CRSQ 4: 41–45.
Butler, L. 1966. Meteorites, man and God’s plan. CRSQ 2(4):33–34.
Coppedge, J. F. 1971. Probability of left-handed molecules. CRSQ 8:163–174.
Frair, W. F. 1968. Life in a test tube. CRSQ 5:34–41.
Gish, D. T. 1964. Critique of biochemical evolution. CRSQ 1(2):1–12.
———. 1970. The nature of speculations concerning the origin of life. CRSQ 7:42–45, 83.
Henning, W. L. 1971. Was the origin of life inevitable? CRSQ 8:58–60.
Lammerts, W. E. 1969. Does the science of genetic and molecular biology really give evidence for evolution? CRSQ 6:5–12, 26.
Nicholls, J. 1972. Bacterium E. Coli vs. evolution. CRSQ 9:23–24.
Sharp, D. . 1977. Interdependence in macromolecular synthesis: Evidence for design. CRSQ 14:54–61.
Trop, M. 1975. Was evolution really possible? CRSQ 11:183–187.
Williams, E. L. 1967. The evolution of complex organic compounds from simpler chemical compounds: Is it thermodynamically and kinetically possible? CRSQ 4:30–35.
Zimmerman, P. A. 1964. The spontaneous generation of life. CRSQ 1 (Annual):13–17.
LikeLike
that is a false statment where is your resource/evidence
LikeLike
Tell me more, please, to launch my study. Is it considered a school of thought, or a line of research? An explanatory hermeneutic, or a scientific finding (or collection of related findings)? Is it summative, in the sense of conclusory?
LikeLike
It answers where 99.99999% of the life on Earth came from, one common organism. A single celled little thing struggling and learning in primordial ooze.
Abiogenesis explains where these first organisms came from.
LikeLike
you need to look this up if you are going to say i am false because what you say is not true
LikeLike
Matt, does evolutionary science explain life’s origins or does it not? You seem to have answered both that it does not do so and also that it does in fact do so.
LikeLike
The planet we live on was not formed in an explosion. It was formed through the collection and merging of gases into heavier elements over a great length of time.
* Considering that trying to look at the formation of the planet you’re currently on would be considerably harder than looking at the back of your own head without aid of a reflective surface, not being able to see it is not surprising.
LikeLike
is it me or did you just prove yourself wrong
Not at all. First, the first quote was mine and is supported by science and evidence. The second quote was your own and is not supported by anything other than your imagination.
In case your were unaware, as seems the case, everything that has mass has it’s own gravitational pull – including gasses.
the law of avgs
I assume by that you mean ‘The Law of Averages’. No such law actually exists as any rudimentary mathematics high school course would inform you.
says this is a false statment about the gasses forming
Then show how it is wrong instead of making blankest statements. However, all evidence available certainly supports my statement.
You need to realise that our star, Sol, is a third or fourth generation star. It has certainly not been here since the beginning of the Universe.
LikeLike
“It was formed through the collection and merging of gases into heavier elements over a great length of time.”
“you need a catalys to drive the gasses that exploded in the big bang theory it cant just start having a gravital pull”
is it me or did you just prove yourself wrong
the law of avgs says this is a false statment about the gasses forming unless their was a very close star that supernovaed but then you still would have to think of the sync of all the other planets with that being a possibility more than the number of googleplex
LikeLike
Kindly keep your responses to a single reply since otherwise it makes this discussion somewhat disjointed and messy.
Your responses, once again, display a gross ignorance of scientific findings. But let’s start, shall we?
“quote on quote for the use of finding billion old explosions” (false statment by scientist)
Supernova style explosions have been seen and recorded, or at least the direct aftermath of such, ranging from billions of years old to just a couple of hundred thousand. This time scale is quite easily measured through several means, the most basic (for your own benefit) is using the constant which is the speed of light and comparing that to the distances of the object(s) being viewed.
noteworthy they have still not been able to find the big exlposion that started planet earth
* The planet we live on was not formed in an explosion. It was formed through the collection and merging of gases into heavier elements over a great length of time.
* Considering that trying to look at the formation of the planet you’re currently on would be considerably harder than looking at the back of your own head without aid of a reflective surface, not being able to see it is not surprising.
you need a catalys to drive the gasses that exploded in the big bang theory it cant just start having a gravital pull
No gasses were present when the Big Bang occurred, as even the most basic of research would inform you.
but hey im here to prove you wrong
And you seem to be doing an extremely poor job of doing it.
You raise no evidence, you raise no actual arguments. Instead you seem content to be spouting arguments that were disproved back in the 17th century.
LikeLike
Kindly keep your responses to a single reply since otherwise it makes this discussion somewhat disjointed and messy.
Your responses, once again, display a gross ignorance of scientific findings. But let’s start, shall we?
“quote on quote for the use of finding billion old explosions” (false statment by scientist)
Supernova style explosions have been seen and recorded, or at least the direct aftermath of such, ranging from billions of years old to just a couple of hundred thousand. This time scale is quite easily measured through several means, the most basic (for your own benefit) is using the constant which is the speed of light and comparing that to the distances of the object(s) being viewed.
noteworthy they have still not been able to find the big exlposion that started planet earth
* The planet we live on was not formed in an explosion. It was formed through the collection and merging of gases into heavier elements over a great length of time.
* Considering that trying to look at the formation of the planet you’re currently on would be considerably harder than looking at the back of your own head without aid of a reflective surface, not being able to see it is not surprising.
you need a catalys to drive the gasses that exploded in the big bang theory it cant just start having a gravital pull
No gasses were present when the Big Bang occurred, as even the most basic of research would inform you.
LikeLike
im verry sorry about my typing but just to show you are a real laugh you are arguing with an 15 year old boy who can teach you more than you know i do agree i am a little cocky but hey im here to prove you wrong
LikeLike
the site you gave me is false first of can you prove to me their is not (deep see fish saltwater fish crabs salmon etc…) of different species found on mountain tops explain that
well i can i call it the great flood
OIL
oil is for the most part found in the ground
oil is also found in man made labrotortys witch you can actually make oil in a matter of minutes that is how most oil came about in the ground the great food came and lots of animals died under great pressure walla oil in the ground lol
LikeLike
i would like to point out that this is a very false statment lets start of with the big bang theory where did the
Not only are you unable to finish a sentence, you seem woefully ignorant of the fact that the Big Bang Theory (which is rather nicely supported by evidence and mathematical models itself) has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
And as for ‘saving madcaps ass’, so far you are off to a rather poor start. I am actually pondering, at this time, if you are actually some sad parody of a creationist since your arguments and typing skills (as well as spelling) seem so laughably poor.
LikeLike
by the way i understand fully all theorys of evolution thank you for the rematk though
LikeLike
point number one to be made
scientist have a special type of teloscope that receives an explosion from a star that exploded thousands of years ago
“quote on quote for the use of finding billion old explosions” (false statment by scientist)
noteworthy they have still not been able to find the big exlposion that started planet earth
point two
you need a catalys to drive the gasses that exploded in the big bang theory it cant just start having a gravital pull
LikeLike
i know fully evolution from the evolutionist point of view is not false but their is no way you can prove the big bang theory true they have tried and failed
P.S you better thank me madcap im gonna save your a–
LikeLike
(The Theory of Evolution has been proved just as much as any other scientific theory of common note or regard)
i would like to point out that this is a very false statment lets start of with the big bang theory where did the
LikeLike
their is now way you can prove evolution as said medcap (”oops”) it is not true you can not prove evolution
Evolution is not “Oops”. Anyone that says so does not understand even the basics of the theory.
Evolution has been proved as much as gravity or germs causes disease. It is only the ignorant, wilful or not, who argue against such.
The impossibilities of a global flood happening are many indeed as even casual research would reveal to you. Now it would be easy enough to produce a list of those impossibilities but people have already done it for me, such as here:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Hartman-6.xhtml
LikeLike
please leave me a reply and i will combat it from any angle
LikeLike
lets take the story of the (ark) in the bible about the great flood you can not prove that false it has somany ways that prove it is all real from sealife on mountain tops to oil in the ground that support the (“great flood”) and it happening
LikeLike
their is now way you can prove evolution as said medcap (“oops”) it is not true you can not prove evolution
LikeLike
evolution is a false statement
LikeLike
Thank you for your responsiveness, Matt. I was referring to your response to the earlier assertion that “the mystery of origins cannot be adequately explained by evolutionary science.” I was confused by your answer beginning, “A pity for you, then, that it has.” Methinks I just don’t follow the briefly elliptical phrasing.
You might find it amusing that in my field, outside the U.S., we look chiefly to Freud on the origins of human culture. A far cry from Abiogenesis, but as far back as Anthro can go, and for many people’s money it was Freud’s best work. Not very dissimilar from the DNA+philological work of Dr. Cavalli-Sforza et al. Such interdisciplinary doings are fascinating and hopeful. They make “Creation Science” look all the more ridiculous, a failed hybrid.
LikeLike
Aren’t you saying at several times here that evolutionary biologists extrapolate forward but not backward, to origins?
I am not entirely sure what you mean by this question. If it refers to what I believe then my answer is this:
* Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth. It deals with the growth of life and the origin of all but one of the species ever to walk on the face of the planet.
* Scientific theories allow the use of evidence and data to make predictions which can then be tested. This has also been done in regards to the Theory of Evolution, testing how organisms will adapt to changes in environment and so on.
The theory which deals with the origin of life is called Abiogenesis.
LikeLike
Matt,
I’m not trying to catch you out, just don’t understand something, despite your careful attentions and fine writing: Aren’t you saying at several times here that evolutionary biologists extrapolate forward but not backward, to origins? How do you intend that to square with your assurance that evolutionary science has indeed explained the mystery of origins?
Again, I’m asking because it’s at this point that I lose my understanding of your generous explanations. Something’s failing me, I presume.
LikeLike
Creationism isn’t science?
Indeed, it is not science. Not by any considerable stretch of the definition of the term.
It has no testable theory, it has no testable mechanism and it, last of all, has no evidence to support it.
The statement evolution is fact is often a statement of faith.
The Theory of Evolution has been proved just as much as any other scientific theory of common note or regard. It has just as much evidence as that which can be attributed to Gravity or that germs cause disease. Yet, oddly enough, it is rare indeed that I see people try to disprove those.
Most likely, as opposed to relating to the existence or lack thereof of actual evidence, it offends their delicate sensibilities and their belief in their deity of choice. Rather silly, really.
If by that statement, it is meant the origin of life and man.
Alas, we have here another who believes that the Theory of Evolution has reign in regard to the origin of life whereas any who have been the most passing of familiarity with it knows such to be false.
Yet, little to no convincing evidence exists to support the gradual evolution of one specie into another–not even genetics.
Again, cherished readers, falsehoods abound like evil-doers in the night. Many a transitional fossil has been found and studied. As PZ Myers recently explained to the woefully ignorant Dr Simmons of the Discovery Institute … a fact Dr Simmons, sadly, seemed completely in the dark about. Which, again sadly, seems to be the normal state of affairs for proponents of ID and creationism – that of crass (and sometimes wilful) ignorance.
The mystery of origins cannot be adequately explained by evolutionary science
A pity for you, then, that it has. It is a theory simple in its mechanism yet is supported by all available evidence known to man and science.
None yet have been able to bring forth a theory which better answers the clues laid out before us.
The most rational explanation for origins still is a Creator.
And how is that? There is no evidence for any sort of creator being. One such as that would be what is known as an unneeded mechanism and one which is surely no more than a whimsical thought or fancy. Much like imagining that grass is pushed up through the ground by fairies or that the sun is pushed through the sky by a celestial dung beetle. Belief in a creator being and rationality do not seem to go hand in hand in the slightest.
However, empirically based medical tests do proves the Supernatural still works miracles every time an incurable and terminal disease is healed.
Then please be so kind as to supply references to medical reports and journals which relate to the curing of diseases which, before such reports, were not known to regress or be cured through natural means such as being suppressed by the immune system.
Or, if that is too difficult, then surely an independently verified account of a human spontaneously regrowing a missing limb or other bodily part would suffice.
After all, if there is a ‘growing amount of such evidence’ then producing such should be childsplay indeed.
LikeLike
Creationism isn’t science? I wonder if those statements are based on conclusions after having read scientists studies, books, articles who are creationists or just the expert critics?
The statement evolution is fact is often a statement of faith. If by that statement, it is meant the origin of life and man. No actual conclusive evidence–certainly observational evidence–exists to prove that theoretical assumption. One reason is that the beginning of life and the cell were singularly unique events never again repeated. Because of this fact, no evidence is likely to be found to support any particular theory or belief.
If by that statement , it is meant random selection and developmental evolution within species, then their is overwhelming factual evidence. Yet, little to no convincing evidence exists to support the gradual evolution of one specie into another–not even genetics.
The mystery of origins cannot be adequately explained by evolutionary science because good evolutionary science is a evidenciary science of the history of nature limited to material reality. Evolution may pose a theory, but it is no more scientific than Creationism.
The most rational explanation for origins still is a Creator. Now, scientific fact may lend support to that rational explanation but it can hardly prove it. However, empirically based medical tests do proves the Supernatural still works miracles every time an incurable and terminal disease is healed. There is a growing amount of such evidence.
LikeLike
Not so much traffic as I’d like.
Odd facts: The single most trafficked post on this blog is the one from 18 months ago on the Berlin Wall’s 45th anniversary. It gets a lot of hits about the time high school classes touch it, and it gets a lot of hits from Europe. Go figure.
Over the past two months, the most trafficked posts are the one on the hoax quiz about Hillary Clinton, and the one on John McCain’s “Christian Nation” claim. Since McCain pulled ahead, it’s been a relative monster for this little blog.
The other post that competes with the Berlin Wall post is the one on the Ranan Lurie Cartoon competition in 2006, the one that Alberto Sabat won with that haunting tsunami of cracked-earth mud hurtling toward that African kid.
Those posts on creationism into which I pour time and research get a half-dozen hits and fade. Why did this one take off? I don’t know. It’s got no great news, and no good news. It’s not long, or erudite, or much original.
I do try to stay on the side of reason, though, Matt’s right — I wish that were a good way to build blog traffic!
LikeLike
I think he already gets lots of traffic by having a rather informative, mature and well researched blog. One that is based on reason and intelligence.
LikeLike
I think Millard Fillmore has figured out a way to get lot’s of traffic.
LOL
LikeLike
Well, madcap, there are two ways to respond to your 3:12 post. The first is to explain, like Matt points out, that it’s mostly misunderstandings and irrelevencies, which may have been passed on to you by people who should (and probably do) know better. For example:
1) Whatever one thinks of a supposed “philosophy of Oops”, ithas nothing to do what we’re talking about – which is modern evolutionary biology (teaching of). Evolutionary biology doesn’t even deal with the origin of life (that’s other branches of science; evolution is what happens once things get going), let alone the origin of the universe! (that’s astrophysics). This is a common misunderstanding one often sees in creationist literature.
2) Evolutionary biology is not based on ‘faith’, except in the sense that everything in all the formal sciences and practical arts of living are – that is, in the sense that we take bridge-building, antibiotics, oil-drilling, criminal investigation (including CSI-style forensics), plumbing, and driving on ‘faith’ (ie, that there is a rule-governed physical world around us). Now, certainly there folks who simply accept evolution because the experts support it, just like all the other things I’ve listed. But as with all those, evolutionary biology is supported by an astonishing multitude of converging lines of evidence – and indeed, the basics are generally easier to grasp than ‘why does a bridge stays up?’ or ‘how does the internet work’! Nor is this information hidden away: there are countless books and articles and webpages and tv programs and etc., more information within easier reach than any society in history has ever enjoyed. It’s a true shame that folks are dissuaded – often even immunized, in a sense. from researching and judging for themselves. :(
(Besides your local library, bookstore, etc., see for absolute starters maybe TalkOrigins (although it’s role as a anti-creationist resource makes it like learning about astronomy from a site set up to combat geocentrism – it makes it seem as if it’s framed by creationism, while actual scientists generally haven’t even spared a thought for it, and ,with a few alert and activist exceptions, have tended to be blindsided when suddenly their local school district starts trying to teach it), UC Berkeley’s site on Understanding Evolution, Carl Zimmer’s Evolution: The Triumph of An Idea, and Prothero’s Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (ok, I haven’t read it yet, but it looks awesome) – and etc., etc., etc., etc.
3) Whether or not one believes in a Creator, ‘believing in a Creator’ isn’t a scientific explanation of natural phenomena (which is (and is only) what evolutionary biology is). ‘God did it’ or ‘Design!’ doesn’t actually give us any information, doesn’t allow us to make predictions (or even ‘redictions’), can’t be tested, doesn’t work to expand our knowledge of that natural world, etc. It’s as if folks were pushing some kind of “evolution-did-it-ism”: how do we explain the nature, history, and distribution of biodiversity? -Evolution did it. Ok, but how? -It just did. This is one of the big reasons ID creationism has been rejected by the scientific community – it’s worse than useless; it’s actively non-helpful. Now, if this changes at some point (as was the case for, say, the theory of plate tectonics – which noticeably didn’t insist on being taught in high school science classes before gaining actual acceptance among relevent scientists), well, that will be very interesting. But it hasn’t happened yet, and I’m not holding my breath.
4) “While evolution is indeed a fact, Darwinism grows ever more faint. ”
Which creationists have been saying for decades and decades now. It’s also built on a kind of misunderstanding. Darwin isn’t a god or idol or source of unquestionable truth, On the Origin of Species is not holy scripture, etc. He had some very powerful (and very well researched and synthesized) insights, but modern evolutionary biology has had almost 150 years of constantly testing his (and Wallace’s, and a few other folks, even) original theory – 150 years of refining, expanding, modifying, adding on entire disciplines (genetics was unknown, for example), and relentlessly discarding bits that didn’t work (for example, pangenesis – Darwin’s failed attempt to explain heredity). There are historic and ongoing debates over the relative influence of natural selection versus other well-accepted evolutionary mechnisms, and nobody imagines that there aren’t amazing surprises ahead, but whether (say) neutral theory or classic natural selection plays a bigger role in evolution; some of the fascinating stuff coming out of evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology), etc. – that’s of course not what you’re talking about.
And so on. But I suspect that, as is often the case, this isn’t what’s really at issue here. All these details, these achievements, these wonders, are quite possibly irrelevent to the actual issue. It’s why you talk about faith and Creators and supposed philosophies of Oops, why creationists can’t ever seem to grasp that evolutionary biology isn’t about the big bang or the origin of life – they’re not talking, of course, about science at all, but about ideology & religious belief. That’s why we have the ID creationist Wedge Document, which doesn’t lay out a research plan to understand a complicated problem, but plots an offensive against a bugbear of materialism which it blames for almost every (real or imagined) social ill, and offers the revival of religious faith as a response.
In which case, read Ed’s 5:26 reply, and I’d also suggest Ken Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God. Why would you want such a little God, such a crude and limited tinkerer?
LikeLike
Amen, DELON!
Reasoned Faith = Strong Faith
LikeLike
Blind Faith = Willed Ignorance
Ed,
Left you a continued thread comment on Tesla you might find interesting.
LikeLike
What robust philosophy, pitting reason against its “antithesis”, faith. Such a helpful categorical error! For the Socratics, the opposite of reason is “doxa”, opinion. (Moreover, for them reason is not a thesis.) For a study in philodoxa, see the string above, passim. Science has its limits, I’m sure you would agree, and declaring faith insane is not within those limits. Standing on science while doing so is almost definitive not of science, but of scientism.
Greetings, Ed. When I read your mention of an attack upon mathematics, I took it as a hilarious parody of the Creationist zanies. Dangit, we should have thought of that! Leave it Waco, then, to present to the world a parody of itself.
In my ever futile effort to be helpful in these matters just because—well you know why—let me suggest that in the primary grades we might do well to eliminate science courses, per se, altogether, and to integrate science throughout the entire curriculum. Done well, it could result in far greater, and more cummulative, scientific mastery, and would have the virtues of (a) contextualizing science, the advantages of which are neverending, and (b) presenting the Zanies with brilliant pebbles to knock down instead of a single warhead. Three or four alternative science courses prerequisite of high school entrance ought to prepare a student of integrative science for the higher studies of secondary ed.
Over the heads of Waco, I admit, but then isn’t that the point? The curriculum is settled in Austin anyway, is it not?
LikeLike
That describes it nicely. Well said.
LikeLike
madcap,
I’m sure Matt has run into the “fundy commentor dilemma”, where as a rational blogger, he wants to comment back at the crazy being spewed forth, yet at the same time, tires of wasting time arguing with an intellectual brick wall.
Creationism is a sad joke. Its not science. It isn’t even robust philosophy. Can you find a single sound argument in the creationist mumbo? Its all glued together with the antithesis of reason: faith.
LikeLike
The post is right on when say creationism has nothing do with science. Madcap… Are you for real? LOL
We recently had post over at Shadow Democracy on creationism as part of our “Does God Have a Future?” series for those that may be interested…
http://www.shadowdemocracy.org/2008/01/27/does-god-have-a-future-part-9defending-creationism/
LikeLike
Obviously some days are busier than others, aren’t they?
But I guess you could not make the logical connections in this particular scenario.
LikeLike
Matt: “Excuse me for having other aspects of my life that needed tending to, rather than engage in continued debate.”
You sure have bombarded me with comments for someone who is so busy.
LikeLike
Wow, great article, you post some really good write ups! Keep it up! Allow me to introduce myself, My name is Craig and i manage my own weather forecast blog for the Central US. Again nice job!
LikeLike
Got it fixed, Matt. No trouble, really.
LikeLike
I’d also like to extend apologies to the site author, as it seems I have a number of comments duplicated in this entry. The sad result of wordpress servers being uncooperative a short time ago.
LikeLike
Excuse me for having other aspects of my life that needed tending to, rather than engage in continued debate … not that you could really call it that … with someone who engages in the dishonest tactics of quote mining and taking things out of context.
As well as rather poor research as well.
LikeLike
Matt,
“Especially in light of modern scientific discoveries that continually point toward a supernatural explanation.
That line, especially, is good for a solid laugh.”
I noticed that you bailed out on our conversation the other day. Remember? I hit you with some quotes from Hawkins you could not trump. Now that is a solid laugh!
See Matt get smoked at:Look at the comments.
Stephen Meyer vs Peter Ward: Intelligent Design
LikeLike
Madcap: If it’s an issue of faith — what one believes, rather than what the evidence says — creationism takes a distant place, far in back of Christianity, in my view, since Christianity stresses honesty in reporting research in contrast to creationism’s monkeying with the facts, and since Christianity accepts science, on the understanding that God is the creator, and so what nature manifests as true is another testament from God.
So, choosing between creationism, which denies God’s role in creation, and evolution, which says nothing about God’s role, seems the more Christian thing to do, to me.
Your mileage on the faith issue may differ. But if it does, you need to justify rejection of the facts to stick with creationism. What does that say about whatever god it is you claim to have faith in, if you must reject reality in order to keep your story alive?
“Unlocking the Mysteries of Life” is a prime example. It concludes that life is too mysterious to unlock (“Give up!” in the words of that old parody song, “Deteriorata.”) And “From Darwin to Hitler” is grounded on false information through and through (Hitler was almost as contrary to Darwin as creationists).
If people will lie to you about things that are easy to check out, what won’t they lie to you about?
The literal corpse of Darwin lies in Westminster Abbey, by the way, buried there in a state funeral as a hero of Britain and hero of the church. Your own sophistry and rhetoric appear particularly designed to bite you on the butt.
LikeLike
Interesting. The above reply I counted … let’s see, at least half a dozen statements that were either blatantly false, random claims without evidence or just nonsensical.
I guess that’s your average creationist for you.
Especially in light of modern scientific discoveries that continually point toward a supernatural explanation.
That line, especially, is good for a solid laugh.
LikeLike
What requires more faith? Believing in a Creator, or in the philosophy of Oops? Is “oops” the best that materialism can come up with? Is oops truly a more rational conclusion than design? It would take more faith than I could possibly muster in order for me to accept that the universe is simply a product of oops. Especially in light of modern scientific discoveries that continually point toward a supernatural explanation. While evolution is indeed a fact, Darwinism grows ever more faint. Materialists cling to the corpse of Darwin, using not science or reason to hold their position, but rather sophistry and rhetoric.
1.Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.
2.From Darwin to Hitler:Ideas Have Consequences
http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/intelligent-design/
LikeLike
Rebecca– I think we already had that discussion, sometime next decade, didn’t we?
LikeLike
I am waiting for the inexplicable drama surrounding the theory of evolution to move on to the theory of relativity. We need to get science controversy up to the 20th century, if only the early 20th century.
LikeLike