Can We Have Any Impact On Dispelling Evolution Science?

Can we have any impact on dispelling Evolution Science?
User CP Blogs Prayers Jobs Arcade Pets Members List Calendar New Posts Search Quick Links Log Out
Conservative Christians A forum for conservative Christians of all denominations.
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (1 members and 0 guests)
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
26th April 2010, 09:07 PM #1
Join Date: 12th April 2010

Gentlemantech48 Posts: 41
Newbie Blessings: 1,891 [Bless]
My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
I think as Conservative Christians we all know that almost all of the media is supportive of "the theory" of Evolution and very seldom, if
ever, allows "Creation Scientists" to have their say.
Would it do any good if we started a campaign aimed at, say, The Discovery Channel, to force them to include Creation Scientists in their
programming?
26th April 2010, 10:12 PM #2
Join Date: 21st October 2009

Faith.Man
Posts: 661
Jesus Christ - Who Was, Who Is and Is to Come
Blessings: 2,113,864 [Bless]
My Mood
Reps: 27,078,221,735,233,668 (power: 27,078,221,735,234
Originally Posted by Gentlemantech48
I think as Conservative Christians we all know that almost all of the media is supportive of "the theory" of Evolution and very
seldom, if ever, allows "Creation Scientists" to have their say.
Would it do any good if we started a campaign aimed at, say, The Discovery Channel, to force them to include Creation Scientists in
their programming?
It's frustrating sitting by and seeing our beliefs routinely bashed on news shows and scientific shows misrepresented as truth, not theory tha
is routinely being changed to accommodate "new" evidence. If the Lord is leading you to take part in or lead a campaign, by all means you
need to do that. Just be prepared for the frustration to follow. My prayers are with you, though.
__________________
Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the
firstborn among many brethren;
Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He
also glorified. (NASB)
26th April 2010, 11:46 PM #3

cerad Join Date: 2nd December 2004
Zebra Fan Posts: 1,419
Blessings: 38,671 [Bless]
51 Reps: 19,259,019,482,167 (power: 19,259,019,489
I would suggest focusing your attention on the Comedy Central channel.

__________________
If evolution is outlawed, then only outlaws will evolve.
27th April 2010, 12:08 AM #4

My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
Funny Man
27th April 2010, 10:24 AM #5
Join Date: 29th September 2006

desmalia Location: Canada
I like cheese Posts: 4,627
My Mood
35
Reps: 4,234,945,857,160,381 (power: 4,234,945,857,168
You can always contact Ben Stein here: Ben's House - The Official Ben Stein Home Page
If anyone's got the power and respect to do get information onto the Discovery Network, he does. Who knows, he may even have something
in the works.
__________________
27th April 2010, 10:40 AM #6
Join Date: 26th May 2009

jpcedotal Location: In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style Posts: 1,820
36 My Mood
Reps: 56,918,629,942,231,512 (power: 56,918,629,942,233)
I believe real science will actually come through show evolution as simply man-made religion.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does God....seriously. Take the time and read a couple of Evolution
textbooks. There are so many "I believe" statements, it is unreal.
__________________
No man is tempted by every sin. C. S. Lewis
First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they attack you. Then you win. Gandhi
27th April 2010, 10:57 AM #7
Join Date: 26th June 2008

sealacamp Location: Mableton GA
Junior Member Posts: 580
51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705
I would suggest focusing your attention on the Comedy Central channel.
Evolution is a theory and should be on comedy central as well. Creation and evolution are both theories. One puts God in control of
nothing where he makes something and the other puts nothing in control of nothing to create something. Personally it makes a lot more
sense that God can make something out of nothing than to believe that nothing can make something out of nothing. The main problem is
that buffoons like you would like to say that evolution is a fact which it is in fact not and can't be proven any more than creation can. Yet
you want to make fun of others when in fact your theory is unsubstantiated and doesn't even have the goodness of logic behind it. So take
your nothing which you believe to be something and enjoy it.
Sealacamp
__________________
John 15:5 “Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit.
For apart from me you can do nothing."
27th April 2010, 04:42 PM #8

My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
You say creation is a theory
Yes, I can understand where we might say creation is a theory. The point that needs to be made however is "the theory of creation" has a
lot more science to back it up than evolution. When Christian scientists start with the assumption that the Bible means what it says, then
the science of it falls into place.
28th April 2010, 03:35 AM #9
Join Date: 31st May 2004

Location: Diocese of Evansville, IN
Ave Maria
Posts: 68,761
I love my Precious kitty cat!
My Mood
27 Blog Entries: 12
Reps: 57,936,472,659,388,240 (power: 57,936,472,659,462
Originally Posted by jpcedotal
I believe real science will actually come through show evolution as simply man-made religion.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does God....seriously. Take the time and read a couple of Evolution textbooks.
There are so many "I believe" statements, it is unreal.
Evolution is a "religion" now? Wow. I really have heard it all now!
That said, not all conservative Christians are against evolution. Many Catholics are conservatives and still support the theory of
evolution. I am one of them. However, I do still believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
__________________
Ave Maria
Gratia plena
Dominus tecum
Benedicta tu in mulieribus
Et benedictus fructus ventris
Tui, Jesus
Sancta Maria
Mater Dei
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Nunc et in hora mortis nostrae
Amen.
In his seven books, ( Stromate is, VII, XVI, 107, before 215 A. D. ), Early Greek Theologian, Clement of Alexandria, head of th
catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt wrote: " . . . There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled
those who are righteous [ holy ] according to Gods ordinance.... In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient
Catholic Church is the only [ true ]Church. The Church brings together [ the faithful ] by the will of the one God through the one Lord,
into the unity of the one faith . . . "
28th April 2010, 12:55 PM #10

My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
Adam and Evolution?
Oh come now sir. You can't believe that God created Adam and at the same time accept the theory of evolution. Those two things don't g
together. In addition to that evolution is a very flawed theory. Almost all of its supportive data does not exist.
28th April 2010, 01:17 PM #11
Join Date: 17th December 2003

Location: Earth For Now
Posts: 39,877
pgp_protector
Vista is not a bad word
My Mood
Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 1,850,453,038,559,672,320 (power: 1,850,453,038,559,718
41
Oh come now sir. You can't believe that God created Adam and at the same time accept the theory of evolution. Those two
things don't go together. In addition to that evolution is a very flawed theory. Almost all of its supportive data does not exist.
What's very flawed about this Theory?
Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.
__________________
Isaiah 8:12-13 (NIV) "Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread i
The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."
28th April 2010, 02:10 PM #12

My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
flaws of evolution
There are thousands of books and articles about the flaws of evolution. Just do a search for "flaws of evolution" and you will get a
multitude of answers.
28th April 2010, 02:29 PM #13

Posts: 39,877
pgp_protector
My Mood
Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 1,850,453,038,559,672,320 (power: 1,850,453,038,559,718
41
There are thousands of books and articles about the flaws of evolution. Just do a search for "flaws of evolution" and you will get
a multitude of answers.
So you have no answer.
28th April 2010, 04:43 PM #14

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705
Evolution is a "religion" now? Wow. I really have heard it all now!
Actually evolution and the entire leftist mantra have been known to be a religion against religion for a very long time. This in nothing
new and has been discussed in depth by many people. One prominent person that speaks of this on a regular basis is Dennis Prager.
Frankly it takes faith to accept either theory so how can one who understands what faith is not know that evolution and other portions of
the leftist belief system are not a religion unto themselves.
Sealacamp
__________________
28th April 2010, 04:51 PM #15

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705
Originally Posted by pgp_protector
So you have no answer.
1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links")
required for evolution to be true.
6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed
assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and
based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures.
9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Well there you have it and there is much more in other places. Gentleman was correct and it is clear that you have your mind made up
and are not interested in searching for any answers otherwise you could not have made your incredulous statement.
Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised
Sealacamp
__________________
28th April 2010, 04:52 PM #16

My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
I would have given you at least one link but they won't let me do that.
28th April 2010, 04:54 PM #17

My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
OK, you found the link.
28th April 2010, 05:36 PM #18

Posts: 39,877
pgp_protector
My Mood
Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 1,850,453,038,559,672,320 (power: 1,850,453,038,559,718
41
Originally Posted by sealacamp
5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing
links") required for evolution to be true.
7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very
inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Well there you have it and there is much more in other places. Gentleman was correct and it is clear that you have your mind
made up and are not interested in searching for any answers otherwise you could not have made your incredulous statement.
Sealacamp
Refuted.
NeuroLogica Blog » Ten Major Flaws of Evolution – A Refutation
(See I can copy stuff also)
Too bad your post wasn't an answer to what I asked.
I gave you the Actual definition of Evolution.
"Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."
What is flawed about this.

Do you deny that traits can be inherited?
Do you deny that traits of a population can change over successive generations?
__________________
28th April 2010, 05:46 PM #19

My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
Not to the extent as proposed by Darwinism. If you are talking about an evolution other than Darwin's theory, then I can go along with
that.
28th April 2010, 06:09 PM #20
Join Date: 23rd April 2005

Willtor Location: Cambridge, MA
Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor Posts: 6,614
My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015
Evolution is not based on chance. It is based on natural selection which is probability-based. The element that is called "chance" is
mutation, which is necessary to the extent that variations on genes can be formed. Complexity doesn't arise from that, however.
What makes you say that?
What is genetic information?
Entropy deals with closed systems. Earth is not a closed system since we get so much energy input from the Sun.
There are quite a lot, in fact. In human evolution alone, there is a clear and subtle progression in the bone/fossil record.
They _might_ not be related species, but it's hard to call the interpretation "contrived."
What assumptions?
This is not an argument against evolution.
I think you mean, "abiogenesis." The present hypotheses are nothing like spontaneous generation. I imagine the scientists working in
that field scoff at spontaneous generation, too.
Unless the data pertains to origins.
Well there you have it and there is much more in other places. Gentleman was correct and it is clear that you have your mind
made up and are not interested in searching for any answers otherwise you could not have made your incredulous statement.
Sealacamp
__________________
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
28th April 2010, 06:09 PM #21
Join Date: 29th September 2006

desmalia Location: Canada
I like cheese Posts: 4,627
My Mood
35
Reps: 4,234,945,857,160,381 (power: 4,234,945,857,168
YouTube - Sproul / Stein interview Part 1 of 3

__________________
28th April 2010, 06:33 PM #22

My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
My last reply on the subject
Ultlimately this comes down to whether or not you believe the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and without refute. The Bible
clearly shows how long Adam lived and how long each consecutive generation lived. All that geneology was not put in there just for the
fun of it. It makes it clear that man is thousands of years old, not millions. I also believe that so called "evolution" is probably
"de-evolution". I believe that Adam was a far superior human being than myself. The curse that God put on this earth after the fall of
Adam has put a curse on our bodies.
All comes down to true, Bible believing Christians vs. unbelievers. We will hang on to the truth of the Bible. Unbelievers will hang on to
"theories" thought up by men.
Have a good day and may God direct your paths.
28th April 2010, 06:41 PM #23
cerad Join Date: 2nd December 2004

Zebra Fan Posts: 1,419
51 Reps: 19,259,019,482,167 (power: 19,259,019,489
Ultlimately this comes down to whether or not you believe the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and without refute. The
Bible clearly shows how long Adam lived and how long each consecutive generation lived. All that geneology was not put in
there just for the fun of it. It makes it clear that man is thousands of years old, not millions. I also believe that so called
"evolution" is probably "de-evolution". I believe that Adam was a far superior human being than myself. The curse that God put
on this earth after the fall of Adam has put a curse on our bodies.
All comes down to true, Bible believing Christians vs. unbelievers. We will hang on to the truth of the Bible. Unbelievers will
hang on to "theories" thought up by men.
Have a good day and may God direct your paths.
And you consider this to be science?

__________________
If evolution is outlawed, then only outlaws will evolve.
28th April 2010, 06:48 PM #24

My Mood
Reps: 9,526,590,022,068,688 (power: 9,526,590,022,069
OK, I will reply to last post
The "science" part, (although not really needed by a believer) is made up by the many proofs that the Bible is about real things and real
places. Do a search for "Proofs of the Bible". Check out Lee Strobel's books such as "A case for Faith". Strobel was an atheist turned
Christian when he set out to disprove the authority of the Bible.
6th May 2010, 07:49 PM #25

TheManeki Posts: 2,957
Christian Humanist Blessings: 132,612 [Check]
My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148
Speaking as a scientist and Christian, the only way for y'all to disprove evolution is to do the following:
1. Learn exactly what evolution is and what it entails. You can't actually disprove a theory if you don't know what that theory consists of.
2. Learn the tools of science. Nobody would take you seriously as a carpenter if you didn't know what the proper tools were and how to
use them; similarly, nobody will take you seriously in the realm of science unless you know what the scientific tools are and how to use
them.
3. Do some legwork. Go on digs. Put what you've learned into practice to make sure you've really mastered it.
4. Come up with a new theory that actually explains all the scientific observations that have been made, including your own. This theory
should also be able to anticipate new observations and discoveries.
If you do that, I guarantee that you will be able to get gigs on the Discovery Channel and other places. You could even get some articles
published in a scientific journal. It won't be easy, but is anything worth doing ever easy?
Cheers and hugs,
TM
__________________
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world..and this knowledge h
holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an
embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn...
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught i
one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then,
to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from
memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about
which they make assertion.
St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Last edited by TheManeki; 6th May 2010 at 08:23 PM.
6th May 2010, 08:36 PM #26
nathanlandon1 Join Date: 4th February 2010

Newbie Posts: 113
Reps: 3,470,858,729,624,261 (power: 3,470,858,729,625
Even though Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence" is a bit of propaganda for anti-scientists (as all movies/documentaries
are propaganda for something,) I have to say that most everything he says is true regarding unorthodox thoughts in the scientific
community. The Scientific Community is, at the very least, a dogmatic religion.
I am a physicist (theoretical, cosmological) and I can tell you there is NO WAY for evolution to exist regarding the evolution of the
universe, nor is the evolution of lifeforms possible or probable. The theory of evolution essentially violates the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, which says that you cannot randomly go from disordered to ordered in a closed system. To "evolve" from a pinpoint of
infinite energy, to a infinite volume of condensing mass-energy, to atoms rearranging to form compounds, to those compounds forming
more complexity which essentially forms life IS A VIOLATION. This is different from a non-spontaneous process (such as HUMANS
making a diamond from a coal, or building a building.) Since there was no outside influence in evolution (besides the evolution and
distribution of the universal energy,) all of this complex order randomly happened, which deeply violates the 2nd law of
thermodynamics. Will a teenage boy's room spontaneously clean itself (disorder to order?) That is what evolution is suggesting happened
with life on earth (a closed system.)
I am not even a biologist, but there are so many things wrong with the THEORY of evolution. It conflicts with quantum electrodynamics,
cosmology and even theoretical physics. Scientists found a gem with this theory, and they cannot let it go because apparently it provides
an elegant explanation for the origins of life. They remove scholarly articles of those scientist that want to peer-review (against) the
theory. They remove tenure of dissenters of Evolution. They make you a scientific pariah. What you do not hear about is the thousands of
scientists (like me) whose belief in God is increased 100-fold because all evidence points to a creator. My foundation was Christianity, bu
I was more or less agnostic. There is no possible way I can deny the existence of God given what I know. I get physical proof of my faith
everyday.
It is even more alarming how many people will vehemently disagree with the reality of this, without even doing some research. I HAVE
LIVED THIS CLAPTRAP. So, before anyone tells me I am wrong keep that in mind: do not be ignorant. I deal with colleagues telling me
how wrong I am daily just because of my (verifiable) beliefs. No matter how much physics or mathematical proof I give my colleagues
they will not believe evolution is impossible. There are many scientists like me that KNOW FOR A FACT evolution is a sham, but we are
outed out of the community.
This is real: there is a war on spiritual scientists and atheistic scientists. The layman usually sides with evolutionist scientists because it
is "progressive," but scientifically, evolution is one of the most regressive theories out.
6th May 2010, 08:41 PM #27

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148
Hmmm...person claims to be a theoretical physicist, yet cannot grasp what the second law of thermodynamics is or what a theory is.
Very funny! Someone should revisit step #2 (and probably step #3) of my four-step plan.
__________________
6th May 2010, 09:23 PM #28
nathanlandon1 Join Date: 4th February 2010

Newbie Posts: 113
Reps: 3,470,858,729,624,261 (power: 3,470,858,729,625
Originally Posted by TheManeki
Hmmm...person claims to be a theoretical physicist, yet cannot grasp what the second law of thermodynamics is or what a
theory is.
Very funny! Someone should revisit step #2 (and probably step #3) of my four-step plan.
I understand it is hard to entertain something without completely dismissing it, as that is the culture of the world especially for the
layman concerning science. However, for people who have eyes to see continue reading.
We [TheManeki and I]are not going to exchange empty insults. And, I am not going to play games with you TheManeki, especially if you
do not care enough to provide more than two sentences and an emoticon to refute what I said.
For people who do care:
ΔS = k ln [Wfinal/Winitial],
S = entropy, k is Boltzmann's constant and W is the number of microstate (thermal fluxuations) in a given macrostate (e.g. temperature
and pressure.) W is equal to
W = N!/[Πi(N i!)]
N represents the macrostates, and Ni represents the microstates that can be ordered (through thermodynamics) in the macrostate. Thes
are integers, but their result (quotient) should give a number for which is greater than 1 since ln (1) = 0, and ln(<1) < 0 because a
fraction is a negative exponential (1/2.71828 = e^-1). W is a permutation of possible ways microstates can be arranged in a given
microstate system.
Microstates a fraction above T = 0k are MASSIVE. When a substance is heated, its entropy increases because the energy needed and
previously within it can be readily dispersed on the previous higher energy levels and on those additional high energy levels that now
can be occupied. Consequently, there are many many more possible arrangements of the molecular energies on their energy levels than
before and thus, there is a great increase in accessible microstates for the system at higher temperatures.
The Big Bang was a pinpoint of energy that had a temperature of near infinite. This means the W is also "infinite" since the macrostate
temperature is near infinite.
Then, the energy dispersed over a volume of space, the mass-energy cooled from energy, to energetic mass-energy soup, to particles with
spin (photons), to decoupled mass-energy (quarks, protons, electrons), to atoms, to molecules, to molecular systems, and eventually to
planets and life. TO ACCOMPLISH THIS WOULD ME A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ENERGY WOULD BE RELEASED.
The temperature of the universe now is T = 2.5K, which is infinitesimal compared to the beginning temperature. Consequently, there are
not many microsystems left to be ordered (compared to before) AS MOST EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ORDERED (planets, solar systems,
humans...). This means that Wfinal < Winitial, which also means the natural log of the quotient is less than zero. This ultimately means the change in entropy, ΔS < 0
or negative!
A negative change in entropy means that it violates the second law of thermodynamics, which states mathematically
dS > δq / T
δq is the heat applied to a system (a reversible process), and T is absolute temperature.
EDIT: For those of you innocently wondering why I am using the Big Bang in conjunction with (dis)proving evolution, it is because this i
the archetypal "disorder - order" process that is flawed. I gave another example with a room spontaneously cleaning itself (ordering.) It i
not possible to order from disorder without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics because that means you need outside work to be
done to make something ordered. In the case of the room, the teenager (or mom/dad) would be the outside work that would transform a
messy room into a clean one. For order, especially complex order to happen, we need something on the outside. What I am showing is we
cannot even make it to the planetary evolution theory because it all fails at the Big Bang/Universe.
Last edited by nathanlandon1; 6th May 2010 at 09:54 PM.
6th May 2010, 09:34 PM #29

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148
Just because you can repeat (or copy-paste?) something doesn't mean you know it. While your regurgitation is technically correct, your
application of it illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding. This is a rookie creationist mistake.
For starters, the Earth is an open, not closed, system. We do receive both matter and energy from our surroundings.
Secondly, you're conflating the big bang theory with the theory of evolution. I am generously attributing this to ignorance, but it could
simply be a dishonest debate tactic on your part.
Thirdly, you do not appear to understand the scientific definition of a theory.

__________________
6th May 2010, 09:48 PM #30
Hentenza Join Date: 27th March 2007

I will fear no evil for You are with me Location: On the bus to Heaven
Angels Team Posts: 20,890
Site Advisor Blessings: 1,047,425 [Bless]
My Mood
Reps: 300,007,325,266,990,656 (power: 300,007,325,267,014
Just because you can repeat (or copy-paste?) something doesn't mean you know it. While your regurgitation is technically
correct, your application of it illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding. This is a rookie creationist mistake.
For starters, the Earth is an open, not closed, system. We do receive both matter and energy from our surroundings.
Secondly, you're conflating the big bang theory with the theory of evolution. I am generously attributing this to ignorance, but
it could simply be a dishonest debate tactic on your part.
Thirdly, you do not appear to understand the scientific definition of a theory.
The Earth is a closed system. Read.
Types of Systems
__________________
“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and
trampled underfoot by men. “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and pu
it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see
your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.- Our Lord and Savior.
6th May 2010, 09:56 PM #31

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148
Originally Posted by Hentenza
The Earth is a closed system. Read.
Types of Systems
If you read the article, you'll notice that the answer is a bit more nuanced than that. As the linked article acknowledges, mass does come
to earth in the forms of meteorites -- open system. This is particularly important for abiogenesis, since some of the building blocks from
life could have come from meteorites.
And this is why my earlier post on how to disprove evolution included a step on learning science.
__________________
Last edited by TheManeki; 7th May 2010 at 06:09 AM.
7th May 2010, 02:15 AM #32

VCViking Location: N.Y.
Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel... Posts: 1,028
38 Reps: 55,790,899,171,042,464 (power: 55,790,899,171,047
Here's the full article:
A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap
is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account fo
the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-
clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such
living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.
Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of th
Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead
of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive
radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the
incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence
behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.

Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would
require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a
species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However,
none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation,
multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The tota
lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are
some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate
the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet,
evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed
to the law of entropy.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that
cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The
fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record show
complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his
theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific
research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many
supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by
modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by
many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is
still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions o
the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet,
research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates
have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes wer
gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred
degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one
of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of
dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of
years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a
chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an
organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100
supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting
that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The
evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.

When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant
people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called
"spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied
evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material
came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife.
Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently
impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible.
If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a
row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it
sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase.
Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not
become alive.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending
species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions.
Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the
beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I
will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When
dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the
dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.
__________________
-
"If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about thei
knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarne
and un-prayed for." - Charles Haddon Spurgeon
#33
7th May 2010, 02:16 AM

38 Reps: 55,790,899,171,042,464 (power: 55,790,899,171,047
1. Learn exactly what evolution is and what it entails. You can't actually disprove a theory if you don't know what that theory
consists of.
2. Learn the tools of science. Nobody would take you seriously as a carpenter if you didn't know what the proper tools were and
how to use them; similarly, nobody will take you seriously in the realm of science unless you know what the scientific tools are
and how to use them.
4. Come up with a new theory that actually explains all the scientific observations that have been made, including your own.
This theory should also be able to anticipate new observations and discoveries.
If you do that, I guarantee that you will be able to get gigs on the Discovery Channel and other places. You could even get some
articles published in a scientific journal. It won't be easy, but is anything worth doing ever easy?
Cheers and hugs,
TM
So, what have you come up with?

__________________
-
7th May 2010, 07:51 AM #34

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015
Originally Posted by VCViking
Here's the full article:
Actually, the biological systems you describe have evolutionary explanations that fit very well with the evidence. The eye is a good
example:
YouTube - The Evolution of the Eye

YouTube - The Evolution of the Eye
This is not quite right. Information science is more difficult to apply than this. To use information science as part of an argument, you
have to identify how information maps to DNA in a mathematical way and then show that it is increasing. It isn't a matter of what is
intuitively information or what is intuitively increasing. To use theorems, you really do have to be rigorous.
This is the same thing as before. It isn't enough to merely look and say that one's personal idea of information applies. "Information" in
information science is very specific and mathematical, and it doesn't always conform to intuition.
Again, this is a misunderstanding of a scientific principle. Many things do order themselves in a way that your intuition tells you goes
against entropy when energy is applied. Crystals are a good example. Order and disorder, like information, in addition to the popular
conceptions are also used with specific semantics in some circles.
There is a multitude of transitional species. Many creationists believe that a transitional species is "partially formed" or something of tha
nature, but that is not what evolutionists mean when they talk about transitions between species. Every step of the way is "fully formed"
in the sense that it is fit within its niche. Even among the species that are alive today, there is divergence that proves speciation: Lions
and tigers, or horses and donkeys, for example. They can interbreed but they have diverged enough that their offspring are either
infertile or when bred with an element of the parent species breed true as the parent species.
Well... no argument here. Evolutionists frequently complain about the pictures, too.
Nevertheless, there is a pretty smooth transition from what you are calling an "ape" (technically, "ape" is a category, and the human
species is in that category) to human in the fossil record. Here, there is a great wealth of bone and fossil evidence (ignoring genetic
evidence, for a moment).
This gets a little beyond my field of knowledge. However, I _can_ say that evolutionists date rocks the same way geologists do. I don't
know what your beliefs about geology are...
This is a misunderstanding of what is meant by "vestigial." Vestigial means that a member has reduced use from what it had at one time
not that it is useless. This is one of the common errors made by Kent Hovind.
I think you are talking about abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was a very different idea. Abiogenesis doesn't, as you say, suppose tha
a mouse will be formed from garbage. Pasteur's experiments didn't actually argue that life could not come from non-life. To do that, he
would have had to test all possible sets of chemicals in all possible sets of conditions.
This is not true at all! And I'm surprised you would make the argument. Science draws conclusions about what happens when nobody is
there to observe things all the time. In fact, at some level, _all_ things happen without direct observation by scientists. We say that a
supernova is observed, for example, but really, it happened long before there were humans. We have good evidence of it. And science is
based upon exactly that. There is good evidence for a thing, or evidence against a thing, and it doesn't really matter about whether
people saw it or not.
__________________
7th May 2010, 11:33 AM #35

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705
Too bad your post wasn't an answer to what I asked.
Actually it was but you are so busy rejecting reality in lieu of lies that you can't recognize when someone is trying to help you get on the
path to reality.
The question is Willitor why you want to support an unsubstantiated theory instead of a substantial theory when you claim that you are a
Christian. Christians I know support Christ and Gods word not some worldly theory that throws God in the garbage can.
Sealcamp
__________________
7th May 2010, 11:51 AM #36

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148
So, what have you come up with?
Actually, this methodology (with a different step one) allowed me to overturn a theory in a specialized branch of chemistry, so I can
vouch that it works very well. Conversely, all the ways that creationists have tried to challenge the theory of evolution have been
unsuccessful, to say the least. Perhaps y'all should try something new.
__________________
7th May 2010, 03:17 PM #37

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705
Conversely, all the ways that creationists have tried to challenge the theory of evolution have been unsuccessful, to say the
least.
They have only been unsuccessful with those who are blinded by lies of deception, who outright reject the Lord and what is logically
obvious. None the less the theory of creation is as viable in a scientific sense as the unproven and unprovable theory of evolution. Revel
in your ignorance and denial.
Another for your amusement:
Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test
a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to
derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.
There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic
bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms
would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an
existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw
in the Theory of Evolution.
Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless
babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness.
Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.
Sealacamp
__________________
7th May 2010, 04:41 PM #38

38 Reps: 55,790,899,171,042,464 (power: 55,790,899,171,047
1. Learn exactly what evolution is and what it entails. You can't actually disprove a theory if you don't know what that theory
consists of.
2. Learn the tools of science. Nobody would take you seriously as a carpenter if you didn't know what the proper tools were and
how to use them; similarly, nobody will take you seriously in the realm of science unless you know what the scientific tools are
and how to use them.
4. Come up with a new theory that actually explains all the scientific observations that have been made, including your own.
This theory should also be able to anticipate new observations and discoveries.
Cheers and hugs,
TM
This then should also apply to the evolutionist.
1. Learn exactly what Christianity is and what it entails. Learn exactly what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for this is essential to
Christianity.
2. Learn the tools of Christianity. No one will take you seriously in the realm of Christianity unless you know what the bible says and wha
it's teachings are. One must at least read the bible in order to disapprove it.
3. Do some legwork. Go on missionary trips to hostile lands. See first hand what these men and women of faith suffer for the cross of
Christ. See theor persecution first hand.
4. No need to come up with a new theory. The bible doesn't change. The theory of evolution constantly does.
__________________
-
7th May 2010, 04:45 PM #39

Posts: 39,877
pgp_protector
My Mood
Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 1,850,453,038,559,672,320 (power: 1,850,453,038,559,718
41
1. Learn exactly what Christianity is and what it entails. Learn exactly what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for this is essential to
Christianity.
2. Learn the tools of Christianity. No one will take you seriously in the realm of Christianity unless you know what the bible says
and what it's teachings are. One must at least read the bible in order to disapprove it.
3. Do some legwork. Go on missionary trips to hostile lands. See first hand what these men and women of faith suffer for the
cross of Christ. See theor persecution first hand.
Problem is Christian Evolutionist aren't trying to disprove Christianity

__________________
7th May 2010, 09:56 PM #40

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705
Problem is Christian Evolutionist aren't trying to disprove Christianity
Incorrect! Evolutionists aren't Christians because they have rejected the word of God in the first place. You can't reject Christ, God, or
His/Their word and be part of the family at the same time trying to uphold a belief, such is a theory, that goes against God.
Sealacamp
__________________
User CP Blogs Prayers Jobs Arcade Pets Members List Calendar New Posts Search Quick Links Log Out
7th May 2010, 10:08 PM #41

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148)
They have only been unsuccessful with those who are blinded by lies of deception, who outright reject the Lord and
what is logically obvious.
Ah, yes...creationism is so logically obvious that there are many mutually exclusive flavors of it.
Here's a list of some of the more popular creationist beliefs:
Young Earth Beliefs

* Young Earth Creationism: Everything was created in 7 24-hour periods, the Earth is ~6000 years old
* Omphalos Creationism: The Earth was created ~6000 years ago, but made to look older.
Old Earth Beliefs

* Day-Age Creationism: Each "day" was longer than 24 hours, possibly 1000 years or so, and the Earth is ~10,000 years old
* Gap Creationism: There was a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and the "days" could have been 24 hours long or
longer. The Earth is about ~10,000 years old.
* Ruin-Restoration Creationism: Not only was there a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, but in that gap one or more Earths
were created and destroyed, potentially leaving behind fossilized remains. The Earth is ~10,000 years old.
All these contradictory creationisms (and many more) were formulated by people looking at the same passages and reaching
different conclusions, although each belief is "logically obvious" to its adherents. The fact that nobody can agree with what
these passages mean shows the absurdity of trying to take these passages literally.
The only thing all these have in common is that they all agree that God was behind things. Of course, Theistic evolution does
that as well. And while all the creationist beliefs have to ignore great swaths of observations in order to claim to be valid,
Theistic evolution reconciles scripture with the real world.
__________________
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world..and this
knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn...
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are
caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our
sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture
for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand
neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!
7th May 2010, 10:17 PM #42

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148)
1. Learn exactly what Christianity is and what it entails. Learn exactly what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for this is
essential to Christianity.
2. Learn the tools of Christianity. No one will take you seriously in the realm of Christianity unless you know what the
bible says and what it's teachings are. One must at least read the bible in order to disapprove it.
3. Do some legwork. Go on missionary trips to hostile lands. See first hand what these men and women of faith suffer
for the cross of Christ. See theor persecution first hand.
I totally agree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that these should not only apply to evolutionists, but also to creationists, since too
many of them appear to stay within the safe confines of their traditions instead of taking a deeper dive into God's word.
#4 is pretty obvious -- Because it's a theory, evolution is supposed to change as we learn more and more about the world. If it
was not allowed to change one iota in the face of any shortcomings, we'd have to call it a religion.
__________________
7th May 2010, 10:48 PM #43
Join Date: 30th March 2007

Location: Earth
Posts: 3,271
dies-l My Mood
Religion is not a dirty word Reps: 25,638,639,010,514,392 (power: 25,638,639,010,521)
32
Incorrect! Evolutionists aren't Christians because they have rejected the word of God in the first place. You can't
reject Christ, God, or His/Their word and be part of the family at the same time trying to uphold a belief, such is a
theory, that goes against God.
Sealacamp
Evolutionists do not all reject the word of God. Many of us believe wholeheartedly in the authority of Scripture but also happen
to believe that genre is one of many tools that should be used in interpreting it and that there exist an abundance of contextual
clues in the first several chapters of Genesis that argue strongly against reading it as an historical narrative.
__________________
The Gospel in brief--
The problem: death.

The cause: sin.
The solution: Jesus.
The result: life.
When we understand the gospel in its simplicity, many of the tired debates that divide us are simply irrelevant. One cannot
correct the problem without addressing the cause; one cannot address the cause without accepting the solution; and, one
cannot accept the solution without encountering the result.
8th May 2010, 06:39 AM #44

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705)
Many of us believe wholeheartedly in the authority of Scripture but also happen to believe that genre is one of many
tools that should be used in interpreting it and that there exist an abundance of contextual clues in the first several
chapters of Genesis that argue strongly against reading it as an historical narrative.
Then you would be a creationist evolutionist not purely an evolutionist which is what I have heard you all saying.
However creation is easy to summarize flavors are irrelevant. God created, that is the long and the short of it. For this scientific
community it has been relegated to a creator who is unspecified for those with weak consciences and can not acknowledge the
truth.
So if you adhere to evolution only and reject God as the creator then you have rejected God as well. It is not possible to be an
evolutionist and a Christian because you have to reject Christ as the creator and yet He is the very one through whom all things
were created.
In the beginning the Word already existed.

The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He existed in the beginning with God.
God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
Sealacamp
__________________
John 15:5 “Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce
much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing."
8th May 2010, 07:19 AM #45
LucyfursAngel616 Join Date: 8th May 2010

Newbie Posts: 1
Blessings: 135 [Bless]
Reps: 173,690,775,814,958 (power: 0)
The discovery channel focus' on science, not pseudo-science . . .
8th May 2010, 07:58 AM #46

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
The question is Willitor why you want to support an unsubstantiated theory instead of a substantial theory when you
claim that you are a Christian. Christians I know support Christ and Gods word not some worldly theory that throws
God in the garbage can.
Sealcamp
Does substantiation make a difference to you? Why do you care whether evolution is substantiated? Would you accept it if you
thought it were?
That said, I support God's word. What makes you think I don't?
__________________
8th May 2010, 11:33 AM #47

Location: Earth
Posts: 3,271
dies-l My Mood
32
Then you would be a creationist evolutionist not purely an evolutionist which is what I have heard you all saying.
However creation is easy to summarize flavors are irrelevant. God created, that is the long and the short of it. For this
scientific community it has been relegated to a creator who is unspecified for those with weak consciences and can
not acknowledge the truth.
So if you adhere to evolution only and reject God as the creator then you have rejected God as well. It is not possible
to be an evolutionist and a Christian because you have to reject Christ as the creator and yet He is the very one
through whom all things were created.
Sealacamp
You don't have to reject Christ as Creator to believe in evolution. Evolution describes a mechanism for development of species.
It has nothing at all to say about who or what sets the mechanism in motion or directs it.
__________________
The problem: death.

The cause: sin.
The result: life.
8th May 2010, 01:26 PM #48

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
I missed this:
Originally Posted by Sealacamp
Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test
a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to
derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.
I have used evolution mathematically. Many computer scientists have done so. There is a whole field of evolutionary algorithms
that are purely mathematical and are used (with astounding success) to derive near-optimal solutions to complex problems. I
can report with some confidence that evolution works quite well and is useful even to people in other fields.
There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic
bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms
would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an
existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal
flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
One of the transcription errors that can be made in a genome is the duplication of a gene. The duplicate may evolve in a way
that is beneficial to the population and eventually become a different gene altogether. In fact, this very mechanism describes
how some primates (including us) regained significant color vision.
Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless
babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness.
Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.
"Survival of the fittest" is not a great way to summarize evolution, IMO. It leads to faulty notions like the one you've described.
"Fitness" regards the relative ability to survive long enough to reproduce -- not necessarily whether a creature is strong or
able. To use the example presented, if parents remain with the infants, the "fitness" you have described may become
unnecessary and gradually disappear.
__________________
8th May 2010, 07:16 PM #49

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705)
You don't have to reject Christ as Creator to believe in evolution.
If you have embraced the teachings of Darwin and the left you have rejected Christ and His word despite any opinion
otherwise.
Sealacamp
__________________
8th May 2010, 07:56 PM #50

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
otherwise.
Sealacamp
Look, you can't fly off your hinges as soon as you start to lose an argument. Maybe evolution and Jesus are not really at odds
quite as much as you think...
__________________
8th May 2010, 08:10 PM #51

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148)
otherwise.
Sealacamp
To get back to the OP, statements like this are why creationism isn't taken seriously outside the conservative bubble.
__________________
8th May 2010, 08:14 PM #52

My Mood
Reps: 300,007,325,266,990,656 (power: 300,007,325,267,014)
Interesting. All this back and forth but no evolutionist has rebuked post 28 yet. I keep coming back to this thread to see
someone refute the math and the science but.......
__________________
“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be
thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do
they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so
shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.- Our Lord and Savior.
8th May 2010, 08:26 PM #53

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
Interesting. All this back and forth but no evolutionist has rebuked post 28 yet. I keep coming back to this thread to
see someone refute the math and the science but.......
It doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

__________________
8th May 2010, 08:37 PM #54

My Mood
Reps: 300,007,325,266,990,656 (power: 300,007,325,267,014)
Originally Posted by Willtor
It doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
Entropy has nothing to do with evolution?

__________________
8th May 2010, 08:40 PM #55

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
Entropy has nothing to do with evolution?
No. It has nothing more to do with evolution than it does with the formation of crystals.
__________________
8th May 2010, 08:45 PM #56

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148)

Interesting. All this back and forth but no evolutionist has rebuked post 28 yet. I keep coming back to this thread to
see someone refute the math and the science but.......
Posts 29 and 31.

__________________
8th May 2010, 08:56 PM #57

My Mood
Reps: 300,007,325,266,990,656 (power: 300,007,325,267,014)
No. It has nothing more to do with evolution than it does with the formation of crystals.
I disagree.
__________________
8th May 2010, 08:58 PM #58

My Mood
Reps: 300,007,325,266,990,656 (power: 300,007,325,267,014)
Posts 29 and 31.
Mmmm.....looks like opinions not rebuke.

__________________
8th May 2010, 09:01 PM #59

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
I disagree.
In what way do you perceive evolution as being at odds with entropy?

__________________
8th May 2010, 09:12 PM #60
bonfire123 Join Date: 7th May 2010

Newbie Posts: 35
Reps: 3,069,543,809,209,628 (power: 0)
when scientists use the word theory in this regard, it refers to a body of knowledge that we have
technically gravity is a theory
basic positive and negative charges in physics is a theory
but we all know these things exist. evolution has a broad base of knowledge backing it up (the heirarchy of DNA, fossel records,
ect...) and accepts that is has limits.
it is entirely different from creationism which is an hypothesis with no scientific evidence to support it to the massive degree
that evolution has.
8th May 2010, 09:20 PM #61

My Mood
Reps: 300,007,325,266,990,656 (power: 300,007,325,267,014)
In what way do you perceive evolution as being at odds with entropy?
Simply because evolution is change outward and upward while entropy is change inward and downward. They oppose each
other.
__________________
8th May 2010, 09:25 PM #62
Willtor Join Date: 23rd April 2005

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 6,614
29 My Mood
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
Simply because evolution is change outward and upward while entropy is change inward and downward. They oppose
each other.
I assume you've seen crystals growing? Would you call that change outward and upward? If not, what does "outward" and
"upward" mean?
__________________
9th May 2010, 01:04 PM #63

38 Reps: 55,790,899,171,042,464 (power: 55,790,899,171,047)
Interesting article. What do you think?
Scientific Facts in the Bible
1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us
that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then
drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free
float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).
4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is
not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a
time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the
world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).
5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible
here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in
speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless
communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when "British scientist
James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated
Encyclopedia).
6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic
radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job
38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."
8. "Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of
creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth" (Time, Dec. 1976).
9. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward
the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits"
(Ecclesiastes 1:6).
10. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to
the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the
Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the
universe.
11. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only
in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled," and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood,
you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life of the flesh
is in the blood."
12. All things were made by Him (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be
in Job 40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called "behemoth." Some commentators think this was a
hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of this huge
animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail
like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a
raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, "He that made
him can make his sword to approach unto him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made,
to become extinct.
13. Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at
the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted
that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward
and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown.
Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent.
Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is
cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in
running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving
invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."
14. Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at
daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
15. "During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms
as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these
epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus
would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical
law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of
Medicine)." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny
that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran,
Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank
Hanegraaff said, "Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence." (11:3
continued)
__________________
-
"If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms
about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not
one go there unwarned and un-prayed for." - Charles Haddon Spurgeon
9th May 2010, 01:19 PM #64

Location: Earth
Posts: 3,271
dies-l My Mood
32
otherwise.
Sealacamp
You say that if I accept Darwin, I reject Christ. For that to be true, there must be something that is central to Darwinism that
expressly rejects Christ or something in Christ's teachings that expressly rejects Darwinism. Please point me towards one of
these teachings. Or is that statement just your opinion? If so, then I will respectfully disagree, and we will be at an impasse.
__________________
The problem: death.

The cause: sin.
The result: life.
Last edited by dies-l; 9th May 2010 at 05:44 PM.
9th May 2010, 06:01 PM #65

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148)
Mmmm.....looks like opinions not rebuke.
Not surprising, since your understanding of what entropy is and how it functions appears even shakier than nathanlandon1's:
Simply because evolution is change outward and upward while entropy is change inward and downward. They oppose
each other.
At least nathanlandon1 was able to recite the statistical mechanics definition of entropy correctly, even if he did fail at applying
it correctly and erroneously conflated the big bang theory with the theory of evolution.They are two separate theories, y'all,
and if you would follow step 1 of my 4-step plan you would learn this. My previous rebuttals were short because I figured I
would get dismissed regardless of what I wrote. But because the educator in me pushes me to continually attempt to correct
ignorance, I will provide a new example. And since this thread is about evolution and not the big bang, my example will use a
more relevant terrestrial example.
First, a preface: The common creationist complaint about evolution is that it somehow violates the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. So what is the Second Law? "The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium does not
decrease." Typically, creationists tend to ignore the very important word "isolated." What is an isolated system? An isolated
system exchanges no matter or energy with its surroundings. The universe is an isolated system. The earth, however, is not. For
most practical points of view, the earth can be approximated as a closed system, because it exchanges energy, but very little
matter, with its surroundings. For some origins theories, such as abiogenesis, that small amount of matter is important, because
meteors can bring new chemical building blocks to the earth. And in cases like these the Earth is treated as an open system.
And biological organisms are definitely open systems.
Now, with definitions out of the way, let's have a simple mathematical example. The statistical mechanics that nathanlandon1's
quoted are great for processes at the atomic and subatomic level, but can be pretty difficult for non-scientists (as well as
scientists without specialization in physics or physical chemistry) to grab hold of. Instead, I will be using an equation that is
more useful at the molecular level, and also has the side benefit of being a little easier for non-scientists to understand, the
Gibbs equation:
dG = dH - TdS (ideally, the "d" characters should be deltas)
dG is the change in the Gibbs free energy. If it is negative, the reaction proceeds at the temperature T. If dG is positive, the
reaction will not occur. dH is the change in enthalpy. If dH is negative, the reaction releases energy; if it is positive, the
reaction consumes energy. Finally, dS is the change in entropy. If dS is positive, the entropy increases; if dS is negative,
entropy decreases.
Now let's look at a model chemical process, the formation of rust (Fe2O3) from iron. We'll even put the oxygen and
iron in an airtight box to make the system closed. The chemical equation is
2Fe + 3 O2 -> 2Fe2O3
In other words, two moles (a unit equivalent to 6.02 x 10^23 atoms or molecules) of iron react with three moles of oxygen
molecules to form two moles of rust.
To calculate dH and dS, you subtract the H and S values (taken from the CRC Handsbook of Chemistry and Physics, 81st
edition) of the products from those of the reactants.
dH = 2 moles Fe2O3 x -824.2 kJ/mole - (2 moles Fe x 0 kJ/mole + 3 mole O2 x 0 kJ/mole) = -1648.4 kJ.
dS = 2 moles Fe2O3 x 0.0874 kJ/mole.K - (2 moles Fe x 0.0273 kJ/mole.K + 3 moles O2 x 0.2052 kJ/mole.K) = -0.4954 kJ/K.
Uh-oh. dS is negative -- entropy is decreasing! Why? One reason is that we have 5 molecules becoming two, which is an
increase in order. Secondly, we have three gaseous oxygen molecules being incorporated into two solid molecules. Gases have
more entropy because they are freer to move around; solids, on the other hand, can't move around and have lower entropy.
Even though we're increasing entropy here, will our reaction occur at room temperature (298 K)?
dG = -1648.4 kJ -(298 K)(-0.4954 kJ/K) = -1648.4 kJ + 147.63 kJ = -1500.8 kJ. Yes, because the enthalpic term overwhelms the
entropic term, resulting in a negative dG. And anyone who has ever left a piece of iron outside for a while has seen this happen.
What is the take home message here? Even though the entropy of the universe (as well as smaller isolated
systems) is always increasing, entropy can decrease in open and closed systems (like planets and organisms) as
long as the conditions are favorable.
__________________
9th May 2010, 08:21 PM #66

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
Interesting article. What do you think?
This article is both scientifically ignorant and has poor hermeneutical methods. I'm afraid I can't even bring myself to respond
to it point-by-point. I had to stop reading after it suggested that Columbus' contemporaries thought the Earth was flat.
VCViking, these kinds of posts don't show thought about the issues being discussed. Why not put what _you_ think on the table
and discuss it with us?
__________________
9th May 2010, 10:13 PM #67

38 Reps: 55,790,899,171,042,464 (power: 55,790,899,171,047)
This article is both scientifically ignorant and has poor hermeneutical methods. I'm afraid I can't even bring myself to
respond to it point-by-point. I had to stop reading after it suggested that Columbus' contemporaries thought the Earth
was flat.
VCViking, these kinds of posts don't show thought about the issues being discussed. Why not put what _you_ think on
the table and discuss it with us?
So basically you do not have an answer for it and just try to turn the question around and at the same time deem it ignorant
and poor to totally discredit it. Yeah, ok. You can do better than that. Please do come down off your intellectual pesdestal and
grace us with your knowledge.
And this is only 15, there are many more. Now, I'm just showing what the bible says. Claiming to be a Presbyterian, you do read
and believe in the bible, don't you?
__________________
-
Last edited by VCViking; 9th May 2010 at 10:28 PM.
9th May 2010, 10:43 PM #68

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148)
So basically you do not have an answer for it and just try to turn the question around and at the same time deem it
ignorant and poor to totally discredit it. Yeah, ok. You can do better than that. Please do come down off your
intellectual pesdestal and grace us with your knowledge.
And this is only 15, there are many more. Now, I'm just showing what the bible says. Claiming to be a Presbyterian,
you do read and believe in the bible, don't you?
I'm reminded of those people who believe that Nostradamus' writings foretell the future, but can only identify what events the
writings refer to after the events have passed.
In a similar vein, the passages that tell "scientific facts" are so vague that they did not allow anyone to deduce said facts from
the Biblical passages. If the Bible was indeed useful as a scientific text, people would have known these facts millennia ago
instead of having to discover them relatively recently by independent means. (And if the Bible was useful as a scientific text, we
wouldn't have people still using the Bible to dispute heliocentrism.),
__________________
10th May 2010, 07:34 AM #69

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
So basically you do not have an answer for it and just try to turn the question around and at the same time deem it
ignorant and poor to totally discredit it. Yeah, ok. You can do better than that. Please do come down off your
intellectual pesdestal and grace us with your knowledge.
Before I do, may I ask: What difference will it make to you if I do? Are you going to copy/paste another 15? Are you going to
reuse these 15 in another thread even after you have been shown they are foolish?
It is not a high intellectual pedestal on which I stand, responding to these points. They are _very_ misinformed and silly. But,
whereas it takes you about a minute to copy/paste them, it takes me an hour to craft a response. This is why I say, I'd rather talk
to you than to some article you found online. I'd like to know that the person I'm debating actually has some kind of investment
in what he's saying.
And this is only 15, there are many more. Now, I'm just showing what the bible says. Claiming to be a Presbyterian,
you do read and believe in the bible, don't you?
I do. And I take it very seriously. I think if you read what you were copying/pasting a little more carefully, your own interest in
the Bible would cause you not to post some of these arguments.
__________________
10th May 2010, 07:38 AM #70

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705)
Please point me towards one of these teachings.
How about in the beginning God created...
And in the beginning out of primordial soup purely by chance life emerged and evolved into all beings great and small.
If you don't know the scriptures or the premise of Darwin then you obviously can't see the opposite supposition now can you?
One is God centered and the other is God removed it is that simple. Why is that so hard for you to see? If you choose to embrace
the world and its teachings then that is your choice. However Christ has said to us "A man can not serve two masters". Do you
need to have that explained too?
Sealacamp
__________________
10th May 2010, 07:53 AM #71

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
And in the beginning out of primordial soup purely by chance life emerged and evolved into all beings great and
small.
If you don't know the scriptures or the premise of Darwin then you obviously can't see the opposite supposition now
can you? One is God centered and the other is God removed it is that simple. Why is that so hard for you to see? If you
choose to embrace the world and its teachings then that is your choice. However Christ has said to us "A man can not
serve two masters". Do you need to have that explained too?
Sealacamp
Interesting. Am I right in thinking that you don't believe God made you? Or do you disagree with modern biology inasmuch as
it teaches about human reproduction?
__________________
10th May 2010, 09:55 AM #72

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148)
small.
can you? One is God centered and the other is God removed it is that simple. Why is that so hard for you to see? If you
choose to embrace the world and its teachings then that is your choice. However Christ has said to us "A man can not
serve two masters". Do you need to have that explained too?
Sealacamp
Speaking of "not knowing the premise of Darwin," evolution does not work by "purely by chance." This is why I suggested y'all
take the time to understand what evolution is, because otherwise you'll waste time and effort attempting to refute things like
this that don't exist.
__________________
10th May 2010, 12:36 PM #73

Location: Earth
Posts: 3,271
dies-l My Mood
32
I do believe that, in the beginning, God created.
small.
Can you cite where Darwin ever said that? I don't think he did.
can you?
I do know the Scriptures and I do know the premise of Darwin. Your statements above seem to show that you do not.
One is God centered and the other is God removed it is that simple.
Darwinism is no more "God removed" than Newtonian physics. Physics does not speculate as to whether God created gravity,
inertia, and so on, nor does it deny it. As science, it is concerned with observable phenomena. Darwinian evolution is the same:
it makes no statement as to God's possible involvement in the process. If your objection to evolution is that it doesn't give credit
to God, then the same criticism applies to any area of science.
Why is that so hard for you to see? If you choose to embrace the world and its teachings then that is your choice.
Do you trust the advice that your doctor gives you or do you refuse to see a doctor because he relies on "the world and its
teachings"? Do you believe in the laws of physics or do you reject those because they are of the world and its teachings? Do you
believe in atoms, neutrons, protons, and electrons, even though you probably have never personally seen such things, or do you
reject such things as a product of the world and its teachings? Do you accept that the universe is made up of trillions of stars,
most of which are bigger than the sun and much bigger than the Earth, or do reject that as well? Unless you completely reject
modern science, like medicine, physics, astronomy, and chemistry, your accusation above rings a bit hypocritical and hollow.
However Christ has said to us "A man can not serve two masters".
I am not "serving" evolution.
Do you need to have that explained too?
Um, no. Do you?

__________________
The problem: death.

The cause: sin.
The result: life.
10th May 2010, 04:39 PM #74

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705)
Can you cite where Darwin ever said that? I don't think he did.
Perhaps he did not however his theory has been used to relegate Gods importance to nothing in the minds of a large group of
people who adhere to the genesis from nothing theory which is an extrapolation from evolution. That being the case this entire
humanist belief is against God in its basis. How can thorn bushes bear figs? This is from Wikipedia and the statement illustrates
the removal of God from what many consider science these days.
For views on the origins of life outside the natural sciences, see Creation myth.
So most of the world views creation as being associated with evolution and when it is not associated with evolution it is a myth.
If you don't see anything wrong with this then all I can do is pray for the Lord to lead you into His truth. Because mans wisdom
is foolishness in the eyes of God. Praise the Lord for making the wise of this world fools and fools of Christ truly wise. May God
lead you and guide you as you find your way to/with Him.
Sealacamp
__________________
10th May 2010, 05:56 PM #75

Location: Earth
Posts: 3,271
dies-l My Mood
32
Perhaps he did not however his theory has been used to relegate Gods importance to nothing in the minds of a large
group of people who adhere to the genesis from nothing theory which is an extrapolation from evolution. That being
the case this entire humanist belief is against God in its basis. How can thorn bushes bear figs? This is from Wikipedia
and the statement illustrates the removal of God from what many consider science these days.
So most of the world views creation as being associated with evolution and when it is not associated with evolution it
is a myth. If you don't see anything wrong with this then all I can do is pray for the Lord to lead you into His truth.
Because mans wisdom is foolishness in the eyes of God. Praise the Lord for making the wise of this world fools and
fools of Christ truly wise. May God lead you and guide you as you find your way to/with Him.
Sealacamp
One of the devil's most effective tools is to mix truth and lies. I believe that the scientific evidence for evolution is so
overwhelming that it can and should be taken as truth (just as we accept gravity, the roundness of the Earth, the enormity of
the universe, and such as scientifically true). So, what does the enemy do? Same thing he does with any truth: he twists it into a
lie.
So, the scientific evidence strongly indicates that species have evolved over through natural selection. The twist that the enemy
puts onto this is that this means that God had nothing to do with it. And, with that he gets a two for one deal: he convinces the
skeptics that evolution is evidence to refute God (which is not at all true) and, in doing so, he convinces many of the faithful
that creation is so radically opposed to evolution that the faithful must reject the science.
__________________
The problem: death.

The cause: sin.
The result: life.
10th May 2010, 06:42 PM #76

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
Originally Posted by dies-l
he convinces the skeptics that evolution is evidence to refute God (which is not at all true) and, in doing so, he
convinces many of the faithful that creation is so radically opposed to evolution that the faithful must reject the
science.
Quoted and Lime'd for truth.

__________________
11th May 2010, 02:06 AM #77

38 Reps: 55,790,899,171,042,464 (power: 55,790,899,171,047)
Before I do, may I ask: What difference will it make to you if I do? Are you going to copy/paste another 15? Are you
going to reuse these 15 in another thread even after you have been shown they are foolish?
It is not a high intellectual pedestal on which I stand, responding to these points. They are _very_ misinformed and
silly. But, whereas it takes you about a minute to copy/paste them, it takes me an hour to craft a response. This is why
I say, I'd rather talk to you than to some article you found online. I'd like to know that the person I'm debating
actually has some kind of investment in what he's saying.
I do. And I take it very seriously. I think if you read what you were copying/pasting a little more carefully, your own
interest in the Bible would cause you not to post some of these arguments.
If they are so foolish, then show me. That is why I posted the article. You need to get over this copy/paste issue you have. This is
the internet, it does happen. I am not an expert on evolution nor am I a scientist, hence the reason I posted the article. I
wanted to see what evolutionists and those who do not believe God created all things thought on the article. So far all I
received was arrogant, condescending remarks. Typical of atheists. I guess I should of asked for serious responses only.
__________________
-
11th May 2010, 02:20 AM #78

38 Reps: 55,790,899,171,042,464 (power: 55,790,899,171,047)
Because you like "copy/paste" so much I've added a few more.
"Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure
there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was
thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that
were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean
floors!"
"There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are
towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea."
"The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with
what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after
its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into
another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change."
This following one I find interesting. Serious and intelligent responses to this one because I'm not sure how reliable this is.
"Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is
comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth."
"Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which
can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!"
"Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th
century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that
follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time
required to traverse the seas."
"Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated
that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with
his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25
zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate."
__________________
-
11th May 2010, 02:24 AM #79

Posts: 39,877
pgp_protector
My Mood
Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 1,850,453,038,559,672,320 (power: 1,850,453,038,559,718)
41

...snip...
You should at least provide the source links for where your copying from.
__________________
Isaiah 8:12-13 (NIV) "Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do
not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to
dread."
11th May 2010, 04:03 AM #80

38 Reps: 55,790,899,171,042,464 (power: 55,790,899,171,047)
Here are just a few interesting quotes on evolution from scientists and many of these scientists are evolutionists themselves.
Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This
museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the
transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology,
and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine
would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of
man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with
increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and
claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac
Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred
debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort
of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of
special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr.
Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest
philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability
of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-
winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it
becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE...
It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of
God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from
Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping
through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists'
widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even
one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on
the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not
so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe,
quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is
a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession
that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however,
with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard
Professor of Paleontology)
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example
still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has
been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people
who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it
filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate
Paleontology at the American Museum)
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show
gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the
imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if
you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you
went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a
hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross
over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so
uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel
Prize winner)
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible."
(D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)
__________________
-
11th May 2010, 07:18 AM #81

51 Reps: 2,865,637,969,703,090 (power: 2,865,637,969,705)
One of the devil's most effective tools is to mix truth and lies. I believe that the scientific evidence for evolution
is so overwhelming that it can and should be taken as truth (just as we accept gravity, the roundness of the
Earth, the enormity of the universe, and such as scientifically true). So, what does the enemy do? Same thing he
does with any truth: he twists it into a lie.
As well he has done and it appears that you have bought and nurtured that lie in your heart. May God free you from this
bondage.
Sealacamp
__________________
John 15:5 “Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will
produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing."
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!
11th May 2010, 07:44 AM #82

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148)
"Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and
the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea."
Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of
deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure,
oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!"
"There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we
discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea."
"The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds,
agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life
cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never
have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to
biological change."
This following one I find interesting. Serious and intelligent responses to this one because I'm not sure how
reliable this is.
"Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the
human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth."
"Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of
seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God
declared this four millennia ago!"
"Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.”
In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and
discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine
navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas."
"Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human
eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the
immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand
billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may
be woefully inadequate."
Again, you sound just like the Nostradamus fanboys. They claim his writings foretold the future, but nobody has actually
been able to predict the future from them, only say that vague passages referred to events after the even has already
passed.
Similarly, none of these passages allowed people to deduce scientific facts from them. Instead, these facts had to be
discovered independently, and then after the fact people interpreted these verses to refer to the science. The Bible is not
useful as a science reference.
__________________
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world..and
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for
an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we
should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian
and laugh it to scorn...
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when
they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to
call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position,
although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
11th May 2010, 08:24 AM #83

My Mood
29
Reps: 14,548,233,068,003,024 (power: 14,548,233,068,015)
If they are so foolish, then show me. That is why I posted the article. You need to get over this copy/paste issue
you have. This is the internet, it does happen. I am not an expert on evolution nor am I a scientist, hence the
reason I posted the article. I wanted to see what evolutionists and those who do not believe God created all
things thought on the article. So far all I received was arrogant, condescending remarks. Typical of atheists. I
guess I should of asked for serious responses only.
No, you got a couple of point-by-point responses. Am I to understand you didn't read them? What would make me think
that you'd read point-by-point responses to any of these other copy/paste posts of yours?
No, you misunderstand. I _don't_ like copy/paste. We could both copy/paste back and forth for eternity, but then we never
actually interact. It's spam.
__________________
11th May 2010, 08:52 AM #84

My Mood
32 Reps: 355,543,953,143,017 (power: 355,543,953,148)
Quote mining is a poor substitute for learning about evolution and science. You'd be much better off following my 4-step
plan instead, because when these quotes are shown in context they do not support your case.
Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported
by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a
particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
"Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum" is commonly quoted by evolution deniers but turns
out to have been an obscure nineteenth century figure who was an assistant at the British Museum and was never famous
at all. ref
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy,
histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic
edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of
fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
Fleischmann was a scientist in the early 1900s, and was not around to see more recent evidence, like genetics, that
overwhelmingly supports evolution. ref
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of
origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact,
were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation.
Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist
scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther
Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
Sunderland has been criticized by the scientists featured in his book for twisting or otherwise taking their quotes out of
context. If you look at the other works of Gould and Asimov, you would find no other statements to corroborate this
passage.
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone;
exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion...
The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
More was a physicist, and had a poor grasp of biology: He actually supported the competing theory of Lamarckism that
was later proved (by scientists, no less) to be false. ref
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research
programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter
Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
Popper goes on to say: "And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have
grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say,
penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it
sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new
environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of
adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all
that." ref
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science
founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly
parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of
Darwin's "Origin of Species")
Actually, Matthews accepts evolution, which is apparent when you look at more than just an isolated quote taken out of
context. ref
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to
the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the
knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to
be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
The full quote shows that Crick accepts evolution, which is probably why dishonest creationists leave the second part out.
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life
appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to
get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have
started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions." ref
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it
absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every
respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect
higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and
Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been
atheists all their lives)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a
tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss
to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial
arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been
arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this
because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by
others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles.
They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs
miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that
for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise,
however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of
thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould,
famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible,
therefore abiogenesis is impossible". Often they cite an impressive looking calculation from the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle,
or trot out something called "Borel's Law" to prove that life is statistically impossible. These people, including Fred, have
committed one or more of the following errors.
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern"
proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
ref
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most
famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared
perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that
is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of
the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as
truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American
Museum)
Actually, Eldredge (and please note the spelling; it's not Eldridge as in your mined quote) was not saying that evolution
was invalid. Again, if you look at the broader context, you would learn that there are competing theories for the evolution
of the horse. All say the horse evolved, but have differing ways that it might have evolved. Eldredge was complaining that
a horse evolution theory that had was still in textbooks, despite the fact that it had been replaced by a new theory that fit
the facts better. ref
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil
record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to
get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most
species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be
gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again,
because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)
Again, if you read Gould instead of just an isolated quote you'd see that Gould is not invalidating evolution. Instead, he is
saying that evolution happens, not gradually, but in a series of bursts in between periods when not much evolving is
happening. ref
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations
seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary
theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me
that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without
murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)
I haven't had time to find this one yet (note that while it takes you a couple of minutes to copy and paste, it takes me a
couple of hours to track down the info that shows you're wrong). Still, it's interesting to note that the man's name is
Ernst, Chain, not Ernest Chain. The quote already seems fishy when the man's name isn't even spelled correctly.
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is
clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)
Incredible means "too implausible to be credible, unbelievable," and this was how Watson was using it. ref
__________________
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world..and
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for
an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we
should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian
and laugh it to scorn...
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when
they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to
call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position,
although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
11th May 2010, 09:15 AM #85

Location: Earth
Posts: 3,271
dies-l My Mood
32
As well he has done and it appears that you have bought and nurtured that lie in your heart. May God free you
from this bondage.
Sealacamp
If what I believed were a lie, you would be able to dispel it using Scripture and reason, rather than emotional appeals and
ad hominem arguments.
__________________
The problem: death.

The cause: sin.
The result: life.
When we understand the gospel in its simplicity, many of the tired debates that divide us are simply irrelevant. One
cannot correct the problem without addressing the cause; one cannot address the cause without accepting the solution;
and, one cannot accept the solution without encountering the result.
11th May 2010, 09:28 AM #86
Atlantians Join Date: 28th March 2006

Student of Theology and History. Location: California
Posts: 5,161
My Mood
Reps: 9,709,611,446 365253574
20
Maneki you are a liberal.
Why do you have the audacity to debate in the Conservative area against the rules?
Dies, you are at most a moderate. And a moderator to boot. Shouldn't you know better?
__________________
11th May 2010, 09:36 AM #87
Join Date: 2nd July 2003

Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,439
FreeinChrist
sigh...back to work
My Mood
Reps: 145,016,071,886,946,400 (power: 145,016,071,886,979)
57
MOD HAT
Folks, this is the Conservative Christians forum. The SoF has this:
4.We believe in the literal authenticity of Christ's miracles, and the historical accuracy of events described in the Bible.
Acts 2:22
This thread is being closed for thread clean up - if you are not a conservative christian, please do not debate here.
__________________

Can We Have Any Impact On Dispelling Evolution Science?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Can We Have Any Impact On Dispelling Evolution Science?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Can we have any impact on dispelling Evolution Science?

Conservative Christians A forum for conservative Christians of all denominations.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (1 members and 0 guests)

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

26th April 2010, 09:07 PM #1

Join Date: 12th April 2010