1stvermont vs Derideo_Te -Evidence for the God of the Bible and Atheism

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by 1stvermont, Feb 18, 2020.

  1. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
  2. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,646
    Likes Received:
    39,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FTR this is the STANDARD that 1V must achieve.

    Since there is ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for 1V's imaginary deity, and NONE provided in the OP either, that is a de facto concession on the part of 1V.

    OTOH there is plenty of EVIDENCE supporting atheism which actually PREDATES the Christian SUPERSTITIONS.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/feb/17/atheism-has-ancient-roots-claims-new-study

    More details can be found at this link regarding the ancient origins of atheism.

    https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...t-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion

    That effectively DEBUNKS IV's absurd contention about "the blu pill of indoctrination via state schools" since no public school teaches the origins of atheism.

    That was easy!
     
    Ericb760 likes this.
  3. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male

    The op was the introduction to the topic, not for arguments. I will use this post to respond to your post and then make a post on my topic.


    Your article provided no evidence for atheism, it simply claimed that in ancient Greece some were atheists. So your unfounded unsupported faith in atheism is just that, faith and hope. Unless of course, we think because others were atheists, that is evidence. If that is the standard, I will since most people for all history have believed in a God rather than atheism. So even if we accept your faulty argument and logic, you would still lose.



    ? I said we today and proved by you, are indoctrinated via schools in naturalism. And this does nothing to show it is not true as i will show on the proper thread on indoctrination.


    My next post will start my arguments in favor of God.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...iberal-naturalistic-philosophy-exists.568330/
     
  4. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Where to begin? there are so many avenues I could go down. I think I will start with some of the causes of why I lost my faith in naturalism and show why a creator of the bible makes better sense.


    Why I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist

    Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
    -Malcolm Maggeridge


    Let no one say we are in an unimaginative age, neither the greeks nor the norseman ever invented a better story. Even to the present day, in certain moods, I could almost find it in my heart to wish that it was not mythical, but true. And yet, how could it be.”
    -C.S Lewis on evolution Quoted in C.S Lewis Anti-Darwinist Jerry Bergman WIPF and Stock Eugene Oregon 2016



    From Evolutionist to Creationist

    I was raised to believe in evolution through the politically correct government school system and also influenced my media and documentary types. At this time in my life [22 and under] I did not know how to think critically, I simply was taught to accept anything I was told and repeat it back, the better I could the better I was. It was not until around 23 I was challenged to look critically at what I had accepted without question. This led me to read sources I did not know existed and was given information that was deliberately left out of textbooks. I started watching debates and time and again the creation side was verified and the evolutionist side was shown to be built on faith and assumptions contrary to observation. I also found evolutionist had distorted evidence and lied to get me to believe in their religion. This pushed me from their faith. The final straw is in their inability to point to any one example for upward complexity evolution. Despite million of tax money and many years invested, not one evidence can be found to support evolution by common decent. However there are added issues, there are many lines of evidence from observation that refute evolution and put it in the faith alone category. It is ok to believe it, but that is a faith statement.


    Mutations/Information

    Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity. Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts.


    [​IMG]

    Mutations work against evolution by destroying information. We have done millions of years worth of experiments with fruit fly's and bacteria and noone has ever observed new information being created. We also have all of our observation with living things that show evolution is impossible by mutations. If evolution cannot explain the origin of genetic information than evolution is refuted by observation.

    “Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory.”
    -Spetner, L. 1997. Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of evolution. Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
    Press.

    biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry … (and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.
    -Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.


    There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
    -DR Werner Gitt head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology


    The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it.” remains a formidable problem.”
    - Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p81


    "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."
    Spetner, L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.


    the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex over time.”
    Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics 2012


    The main mechanism for producing gentic variety required for evolution, random mutation, has been falsified”
    -Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and forgeries 2017



    Origin of Life From Non life

    For life to come from non life a few scientific laws such as the law of information and the law of The law of biogenesis must be violated.

    "Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
    -Horgan, J. Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011.


    "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
    *Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88

    We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
    -Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998



    Irreducible complexity

    There are many examples of biological systems that could not have arisen one at a time over long periods of time, but had to be there together at same time. An example, certain protein machines are needed to read DNA, but the protein machines themselves are codded for in the DNA. Or that the heart kidney and lung all work together, without any one of them the others could not survive. Enzymes controlled dna systems replication dna controlled rna systems transcription, rna controlled protein sythesis translation

    According to evolution this toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all phyla, before first appearance of phyla, prior to Cambrian explosion, prior to muticulular life. The gens that control body plans had to originate, when there were no bodies to control embryonic development.Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plans—and these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the various phyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the ‘Developmental Genetic Toolkit’. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phyla—in other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian— prior to the origin of multicellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos.

    At the point when the modern animal body plans first emerged [half a billion years ago] just about all the genes that are used in modern organisms to make embryos were already there. They had evolved in the single-celled world but they weren’t doing embryogenesis [Mazur’s braces]” (Stuart Newman, p. 52).
    Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot ‘look ahead’ and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the ‘tools’ for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization.


    Stuart Newman’s paper, which “served as the centerpiece of the Altenberg symposium” (Mazur, p. 12), claims that all 35 or so animal phyla physically self-organized by the time of the Cambrian explosion, and selection followed later as a ‘stabilizer’ of the self-organized novelties.

    Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?”
    (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321).
    A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
    North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010


    How do things like immune system and digestive system evolve?


    There are many things like the bacteria flagelum that has 40 parts that would not work together unless all there from beginning.

    The heart and placenta. A pregnant woman’s placenta secretes progesterone, a hormone that signals her tiny baby’s cells to take up less cholesterol. Cholesterol is a vital component of all body cells, including heart cells, and the placenta regulates cholesterol levels. Thus, the healthy development of a baby’s heart depends on the mother’s placenta. Likewise, the placental cells would fail to manufacture progesterone or perform their other vital tasks without a blood supply, which the mother’s heart generates. Thus, the placenta and heart function interdependently to knit a baby.So, which came first? The heart could not have come first since it would not have formed without the placenta. But if the placenta came first, it could not have worked without a heart. Both organs had to arise simultaneously, pointing toward a sudden miracle!
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  5. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The Cambrian Explosion

    To be honest , to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies Darwinism, something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”
    -Walter remine p 26 JOC 2012 26 [1]


    In the early Cambrian Rocks 100 phylum [only 30 living today, phylum is largest category of organism species, genus, family etc. ] Are found in the "lowest" level of rocks called the Cambrian. It is were life first appears in the fossil record. So more diversity of life appears there, than alive today, with no fossils before it at all. No transitional forms for them.There are vast numbers—billions—of fossils of thousands of different species of complex creatures in the Cambrian,—and below it is next to nothing. The vast host of transitional species leading up to the complex Cambrian species are totally missing. Darwin said about the Cambrian explosion I can give no satisfactory answer.

    all of the known animal bodies plans seem to have appeared in the Cambrian”
    -Rudolf raff evolutionary biologist 2009


    “Cambrian period of only 20mya”
    Richard Dawkins the greatest show on earth


    It know appears that this Cambrian explosion during which nearly all the extinct animal phyla have emerged lasted only 6-10 million yearsAnd we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
    -Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), p. 229.


    "First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form. The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits."
    —*Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56



    The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.”
    -Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.


    Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian, and none are ever found beneath it in the Precambrian
    ( *Preston Cloud, "Pseudofossils: A Plea for Caution," in Geology, November 1973, pp. 123-127).



    Origin of Sexually Reproduction

    Reproduction needs complete complementary reproductive organs, but evolution is not goal orientated or able to plan ahead, how could all the complex organs develop over thousands of generations when the organism cannot produce without them? And suppose to happen in same place and time?

    Complexity of reproductive system

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made


    Origin of non Material Things like Information, Love, Memory, Laws of Logic, Science, Morality etc

    If evolution were true and all there was is just matter and motion. How could things like love memory morality information exist? If evolution were true, science would not make sense.

    Science only Makes Sense in a Biblical Worldview

    If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
    -C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


    Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
    -John Lennox prof fellow of mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university 2009


    Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

    Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

    Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.

    But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.
     
  6. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Design and Complexity

    If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?

    "Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:] ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon he requires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design."
    —*Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence, p. 23.



    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    -Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.


    So it seems to me the clear answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation. There are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.

    If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimeter across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1
    -Feringa, B. L. 2000. Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408 (6809): 151-154.


    biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information. each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over, and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt?

    The DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were , how many and when.
    Some functions of cellular machines DNA maintenance robots that proofread information, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice in corrections, and rewind the strands

    • Intracellular elevators

    • Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports

    • Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states

    • Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion

    • Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor

    • A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks
    A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Real engines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2
    Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.

    Biovision harvard

    http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/

    protein being made




    An adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections,d more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.e

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html

    if all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin!”
    -In the beginig walt brown


    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI3.html

    Two free quick videos on complexity

    http://creation.com/DNA-repair-enzyme

    free 4 part video of the complexity of the human reproduction systems

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made
    the hearing ear
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/hearing-ear/hearing-ear
    the seeing eye
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/seeing-eye/seeing-eye


    Fully-Developed Organs

    All species appear fully developed, not partly developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.


    Law of Thermodynamics

    evolution teaches matter is not conservative but self originating - the first law of thermodynamics disproves this

    first law -energy cannot by itself be created or destroyed . energy may be changed from one form into another but the total amount remains unchanged the sum total of the energy (or its matter) will always remain the same

    no new matter or energy will make itself. since matter /energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself only a outside agency or power can make or destroy it. the creation of the universe must be non material because if it was material it would be subject to decay like all material, so the creator must be non material spiritual and eternal psalm 90.2


    The Second Law of Thermodynamics

    Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.

    This law is completely constant with creation from order to disorder. Stars blow up, run out of fuel, mutations kill destroy, things go from complex to disorganized. We see stars dying not being created, life is not just popping up around us. You have to make repairs to your car and house when things are left to themselves they disintegrate deteriorate, most jobs are because of the second law. We have never observed the opposite things going from disorder to order less complex to more[without outside intelligence].
     
  7. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The Fossil Record

    If evolution were true, than there should be millions of perfect transitional fossils all over the earth. With all the variety of life today, you cannot evolve all life without leaving a trace. There has been many claimed "missing links" but they are usually frauds, faked, or proven wrong shortly after. The difference between the major phylum or even family groups, would leave a clear trail in the fossil record, the only missing links we have,are the ones that are within the family kind. Organisms come into the fossil record sudden and fully formed just as creation would predict.

    Here are a few quotes from leading evolutionist

    ". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."
    —*--Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979



    "No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links.
    "There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."
    —*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.



    "Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ " —*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.


    "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."
    —*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit.

    After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:
    "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.



    "[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther -Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.



    "Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." —*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

    "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution." —*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.


    Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule . . The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated." —*Newsweek, November 3, 1980

    I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’

    Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.


    “in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
    - raop daivd education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289



    The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. - Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,


    "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them." —*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467


    "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." —*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.


    ... there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.” -Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

    There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil records provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution”.
    -Dr. Michael Denton.Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, 1985, Page 172.


    Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?

    "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97
    [84]HYPERLINK "http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-83"[85]

    "When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be." —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100
     
  8. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Derideo_Te

    We have more than enough to get us stared here. I ask that you present your evidence for atheism as well so I can respond. After we go through some of why I lost faith in naturalism, we can move on to why the God of the Bible, and only he, is true.
     
  9. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,646
    Likes Received:
    39,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    THIS is the thread for the debate that you INSIST upon having. Not wasting MY time jumping around multiple threads. Either make your arguments HERE or WASTE your OWN time elsewhere.

    The point about atheism PREDATING Christianity that went over your head is that SKEPTICISM with regard to bovine excrement claims about IMAGINARY deities has ALWAYS EXISTED for a very good reason.

    NO EVIDENCE EXISTS for imaginary deities.

    You have NONE and CANNOT produce any.

    Instead you want to denigrate the SKEPTICS themselves as if that somehow NEGATES the VALIDITY of their position that theists HAVE NEVER and WILL NEVER produce any credible evidence for their imaginary deities.

    That you are NOT up to the CHALLENGE of providing the necessary credible evidence is hardly surprising. I am going to start a COUNT for every post you make that DOES NOT contain any credible evidence for your imaginary deity.
     
    Ericb760 likes this.
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,646
    Likes Received:
    39,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DEFLECTION #1 without any shred of credible evidence to support your IMAGINARY deity.
     
    Ericb760 likes this.
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,646
    Likes Received:
    39,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DEFLECTION #2 without any shred of credible evidence to support your IMAGINARY deity.
     
    Ericb760 likes this.
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,646
    Likes Received:
    39,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DEFLECTION #3 without any shred of credible evidence to support your IMAGINARY deity.
     
    Ericb760 likes this.
  13. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Good skepticism is a great thing, but we must be skeptical of our own indoctrination into atheism. Why are you not skeptical of that? I hope someday like me in the past, you become skeptical and apply it to your own faith.

    He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
    - Albert Einstein


    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
    ― Mark Twain



    Also God did not start in Bethlehem, he was around since the very beginning, before time in fact.





    That is because they are imaginary like your faith in atheism. That is why you provided no evidence for your imaginary beliefs. On my side you will see many more posts for the God of the bible.



    We shall see if this hopefull statement stands true. Sounds to me like your trying to convince yourself.



    You, my friend, are no skeptic, you are accepting a faith you were taught via schools and you cannot support with any evidence. Neither can you defend it against what I had posted. You are showing yourself correctly in one area. Those who believe in imaginary deities [such as your athiesm] "NEVER produce any credible evidence for their imaginary deities"



    So, in other words, you want to remove the debate from you having to support your blind faith in an imaginary deity you cannot support, so you can claim others deities are just as much a blind faith leep in the dark as your so as to justify your own idol. Interesting. Not the actions of a skeptic but a fundamentalist indoctrinated atheist liberal.
     
  14. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male

    So, of course, I could go on with post after post on similar subjects but I think we have proved a few things here.

    1- You cannot provide any evidence for your imaginary deity of atheism as you yourself admit, because if no evidence, it must be imaginary.

    2- You cannot defend your faith when objections are brought up that refute it because it is both imaginary and because you have simply accepted the faith of naturalism as spoon-fed you and you liked the blue pill but cannot defend it. You live in an imaginary world.

    So that rules out one imaginary deity. So now this next post I shall begin to give various reasons why the God of the bible is true and your deity cannot be.
     
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,646
    Likes Received:
    39,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is total and utter baseless GIBBERISH!

    Here is the DEFINITION of atheism.

    https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

    Atheism is neither a belief nor a religion. No amount of FALSEHOODS in VIOLATION of the commandments of YOUR imaginary deity are going to alter that INDISPUTABLE FACT!

    But thanks for PROVING me 100% CORRECT that your puerile game is just to ATTACK atheists because YOU utterly LACK any ability to DEFEND your own "BLIND FAITH".

    DEFLECTION #4 without any shred of credible evidence to support your IMAGINARY deity.
     
    Ericb760 likes this.
  16. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,646
    Likes Received:
    39,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DEFLECTION #5 without any shred of credible evidence to support your IMAGINARY deity.
     
    Ericb760 likes this.
  17. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I will begin with some of the main reasons I accepted the Bible.



    What is Biblical Creation?


    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    - C. S. Lewis


    We believe Noah's flood was global killing all land dwelling life at that time. We believe this is confirmed by the fact that there are trillions of dead plants and animals laid down by water in massive graves all over the earth. We believe the earth was created in 6 literal days thousands of years ago. We believe this is confirmed by the many dating methods that show the earth cannot be millions of years old and the false assumptions and problems with dating methods such as radiometric dating. We believe all animals produce after their own kind and all the genetic information was there in the original created kinds. We believe this is verified by science and observation.

    I believe there was a original perfect creation that is now falling apart because of sin and the curse. Now death, disease, mutations have entered gods once perfect creation. This is why we see stars blowing up, people and animals dying, decaying and breaking down. Everything tends towards disorder, complex to disorder. Evolution says the opposite, disorder to order, incoplex to greater complexity over time, they cannot be further from each other. Evolution claims it all started from nothing that exploded in a big bang that produced hydrogen which is a order less tasteless invisible gas. So they say out of this gas stars started to form planets and than galaxies the higher elements were created, than the earth formed a hard crust surface were it rained for billions of years on the rocks that magically created life. That life was able to eat, reproduce etc, than that single celled organism gave rise to all life on earth so it increase in complexity. So matter must be able to go from simple to complex, disorder to order, if evolution is true. Really evolutionist must believe that hydrogen gas, a order less tasteless, invisible gas, given long enough will turn into people. Creation says the opposite complexity and order to disorder.


    Biblical Creation- Natural Selection and Speciation

    I am a biblical creationist I believe everything was created to reproduce after its own kind, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats etc There is alot of variety in these animals so that a dog, coyote, and wolf have a common ancestor, but it was from the original dog kind, they have know varied and produce the many kinds today. But all the information was already present the variation we see in animals today was already present in the original producing kind.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
    http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-2-variation-and-natural-selection-versus-evolution
    https://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind


    [​IMG] [​IMG]



    So in the above picture on the left we see how variation can lead to genetic change in a population. The original created pair of dogs had the genes for both Long [L] and short fur . They produced a variety in their offspring where some received only Long fur genes and some only short fur genes. This is a very basic example of how variation within the kind that eventually leads to speaciation [dog, wolf, coyote] happens. The picture on the right is an example of this. The original dog kid's descendants spreads out over various terrain and those with short fur survive better than those with longer fur in the hotter climate and natural selection favors those with short fur and the long fur die out. In the north the long fur have the advantage and the short fur die out. But all the original information to produce the genes for long fur and short fur are already present in the original biblical kind.


    “natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation.... Natural selection only affects changes in the frequency of the variants once they appear; it cannot directly address the reasons for the existence of the variants.”
    --Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986


    Biblical Kind


    21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. ...24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
    -Genesis 1

    The bible says God created life to reproduce after its own kind. God created various separate distinct kinds [not species] of animals. So a wolf coyote and dog shared a common ancestor. Today we often use the term species for multiple animals within the same biblical kind. For example a camel and a llama can breed. A Lynx and a bobcat, yak and cow, lion and tiger, leopard and jaguar, dingo and dog, coyote and dog, gray wolf and coyote, killer whale and bottle nose dolphin, a zebra and donkey, a zebra and horse and on and on. Because these species all originated from the original biblical kind God created they can still interbreed. They have since diversified but all the potential for change was within the original kind God created.


    [​IMG]




    Biblical Creation and Mutations

    upload_2020-2-18_10-30-16.png


    Mutations happen but all observation and experimentation shows they work against evolution. Mutations reduce information in an organism they do not build up. See http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin

    It really is in my opinion the best argument for creation and the best refuter of evolution. Evolution needs to increase complexity over time through mutations, yet all observation shows the opposite. Take the example above of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic-resistant H. pylori have a mutation that results in the loss of information to produce an enzyme. This enzyme normally converts an antibiotic to a poison, which causes death. But when the antibiotics are applied to the mutant H. pylori, these bacteria can live while the normal bacteria are killed. So by natural selection the ones that lost information survive and pass this trait along to their offspring. This process cannot exspalin the origin of the enzyme.

    “Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome . This surly shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory evolution demands.”
    -L.spetner not by chance 1997

    Some mutations are beneficial such as the above, or a insect on a island that has a mutation so it does not produce wings, know lives while the others that did not have the mutation die off, so know this insect with the new mutation lives and passes on its genes till the whole island is know mutated wingless insects. Yet this is the wrong kind of change for evolution [reduced destroying] yer constant with biblical creation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  18. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Biblical Creation and Global Flood

    If a worldwide flood occurred, what would we expect to see? Billions of dead plants and animals laid down rapidly by water fossilized all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead plants and animals laid down rapidly by water fossilized all over the earth. Rapid burial of billions of dead plants and animals over long distances is just what would be expected in a worldwide flood. It is universally accepted that sedimentary rock was laid down by moving water. so the material making up strata had to first been eroded from one place and transported by water and deposited in another. This is exactly what you would aspect in a global flood. In the17th and 18th century it was generally accepted a universal flood produced the worlds rock layers and fossils. flood conditions are perfect for for forming fossils. No one would argue that the entire earths surface has not been at some time underwater. Marine fossils are found throughout the whole geological column, showing that ocean waters were over continents throughout whole column formation. fossils must be buried fast to be preserved. compared to modern flash floods if there was a year long global flood the amount of sediment fits almost perfectly in gemological column. For light reading on the major evidences for a global flood see here

    https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/geologic-evidences-for-the-genesis-flood/

    A great video on flood evidences
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Rock-Strata-Fossils-and-the-Flood,5631,229.aspx
    Books on the global flood
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Earths-Catastrophic-Past,6438,226.aspx
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/The-Flood,6211,229.aspx
    https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/global-flood/
    https://usstore.creation.com/how-noahs-flood-shaped-our-earth

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/


    Evolutionist fulfill a profacy of the bible by rejecting the global flood by claiming Unitarianism. The present is key to the past and slow gradual Unitarianism is how modern geologist often interpret the rock record, “all things continue as they were from the beginning.”


    knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.”
    - 2nd peter 3 3-7



    Biblical Creation and the Age of the Earth

    Here are some quick links to hundreds of young earth dates

    http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/young-age-evidence
    http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa
    http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/young-universe-video
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/age-of-the-universe-2
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/heavens-declare-young-solar-system
    http://creation.com/lunar-volcanoes-rock-long-age-timeframe
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af0907.pdf
    http://www.answersingnesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/blue-stars
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_4.htm


    I will give some here


    When one considers that the most reasonable explanation for the fossils in various rock strata is a sudden catastrophic burial—[along with] the absence of transitional [fossil] forms in the rock strata, the presence of collagen in dinosaur bones supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, and the presence of measurable 14C in that collagen—it becomes very difficult to hold an old-earth view “
    -Dr. Cupps earned his Ph.D. in nuclear physics at Indiana University-Bloomington is Research Associate at ICR.


    There are about a hundred dating method that show the earth cannot be as old as the evolutionist need it to be. The data are well known in the scientific literature but do not make it to the school classrooms or on CNN. Here are some examples.

    Erosion Rates of Continents

    The continents would have eroded away over 250 times if they were as old as the evolutionist say. Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

    J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264


    Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”

    S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155

    Even using the slowest possible rates of erosion the continents would have eroded in 623 million years. The resulting measured rates [lower than normal ] would give only 9.6 million years until all above sea level continents would be totally eroded. As one evolutionist said

    if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
    C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668



    Levels of Salt in the Oceans

    Giving best possible assumptions and generous calculations to the evolutionist the salt would have accumulated in the oceans in a maximum possible age of 62 million years. Many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans. This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old. Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans. Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.

    M ,Meybeck, 1979 concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports aux oceans, revuede geologie dynamique et de geographie Physique 21 [3] 215-246 F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779

    The rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year.

    F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779
    S.A Austin and D R Humphreys 1990 the seas missing salt proceedings of the second international conference on creationism vol 2 R E Walsh and C L books,eds Pittsburgh Pa creation science fellowship 17-33

    Assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be. Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%.

    W S Moore 1996 Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters reveled by 226 Ra enrichments Nature, 380 [6575] 612-614 T M church 1996 An underground route for the water cycle Nature 380 [6575] 579-580

    Additional calculations for for many seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
    http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/


    Galaxies Wind Themselves up too Fast

    The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.

    "HYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r2"We have found it impossible to reproduce the traditional theory, but stars move with the spiral pattern in our simulations at the same speed.HYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r2"2 The "HYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r2"traditional theoryHYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r2"" held that stars are channeled into arms by "HYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r2"density waves.HYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r2"" However, this explanation merely pushes the problem back one step to another puzzle—what caused the density waves? And clearly, Grand was unable to make the physics of the "HYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r2"traditional theoryHYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r2"" of density waves work in his simulations. 3
    Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar MatterHYPERLINK "http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r2", Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413. Return to text.
    D. Zaritsky et al., Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10.

    3 NAM 21: New theory of evolution for spiral galaxy arms. Royal Astronomical Society press release, April 20, 2011.

    http://www.icr.org/article/6069/
     
  19. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ocean Floor Sediments

    sediments are being eroded from the continents by a average of 24 billion tons as a low estimate. It is estimated that the ocean floor has a average depth of less than 400 meters.
    WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940

    There is only one know way to remove sediments from the ocean floor by subduction, it is estimated that about 1 billion tons per year of sediments are subducted.

    WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940

    The other 23 tons accumulate at the ocean bottom, at that rate the sediments would have accumulated in just about 12 million years. According to evolution these processes have been occurring for 3 billion years.


    Decay of Earths Magnetic Field

    10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The strength of the magnetic field has been reliably and continually measured since 1835. From these measurements, we can see that the field's strength has declined by about seven percent since then, giving a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that in 1,400 years it will be one-half as strong, in 2,800 years it will be one-fourth as strong, and so on. There will be a time not many thousands of years distant when the field will be too small to perform as a viable shield for earth. Calculating back into the past, the present measurements indicate that 1,400 years ago the field was twice as strong. It continues doubling each 1,400 years back, until about 10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The inescapable conclusion we can draw is that the earth must be fewer than 10,000 years old. Compare this "clock" with others used to estimate earth's age. This method utilizes a long period of measurement, amounting to over one-tenth of a half-life, whereas radioisotope decay has been accurately measured for only about 100 years, while its half-lives are typically measured in the billions. The short half-life should be favored by uniformitarians for it minimizes the chances that something dramatic has happened to change things, since longer spans are more susceptible to out-of-the-ordinary events. Magnetic field decay also involves a whole earth measurement, and on this large scale it cannot be easily altered or "contaminated," as could any rock selected for radioisotope dating. The young-earth implications are even stronger when the energy of the field is considered rather than its strength, for the energy's half-life decays each 700 years.

    http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field/
    http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young


    Earth-Moon System


    the tides when the moon would have close enough would have drowned all life on earth twice a day and shattered the moon. How long has the moon been receding? Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.7 The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.8 NB: this is the maximum possible age — far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks) — not the actual age.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0811.asp


    Comets Disintegrate too Quickly

    According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]
    Steidl, P.F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73–106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092


    Human Population Growth

    It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.That’s not very much. Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. Say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square meter per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square meters. If every one of those square meters were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

    http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people


    Geneticists recently analyzed human gene differences

    Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.

    The research team investigated the amount of diversity among today’s human genes and how long it took to reach the current amount of diversity. They concluded that human genes diversified recently. The authors wrote, “The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago.”

    Recent studies indicate that mutationns, most of which are nearly harmless, accumulate at a rate of at least 60 per human generation.

    For example, see Conrad, D. et al. 2011. Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families. Nature Genetics. 43 (7): 712-714. Genesis 9:19.

    The rapid explosion of human genetic diversity over the last 5,100 or so years easily fits the biblical model

    if the evolutionary timeline is true, then human population growth and genetic diversity were miraculously unchanged for a few million years before suddenly exploding in just the last few thousand years. What are the odds that every married couple would have had almost exactly two offspring—just enough to replace the parents—survive into the next generation for over two million years or 100,000 straight generations?

    Dinosaur Blood Vessels

    Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.”
    "Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"1
    Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.


    Hemoglobin and proteins decay rates from observable science proves they cannot be millions of years old. Some cannot last 2.7 million years frozen.

    There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long
    Schweitzer, M.H. et a., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009

    collagen found dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.

    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
    http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf

    It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.

    Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation 30(3):12–15, 2008.

    also dna and material that should have decayed away has been found in these supposed ancient ice cores

    Willerslev, E. et al. 2007. Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland. Science. 317 (5834): 111-114.
    http://www.icr.org/article/bacteria-resurrected-from-greenland
    half life of collagen at 7.5 Celsius last 130 thousand years. Optimal preservation conditions.

    Nielsen marsh c bimolecules in fossil remains multidisciplinary approach to endurance the biochemist pp 12-14 june 2002

    also responds to claims of contamination.

    Joc 27 [1] 2013


    when you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded comepletley”
    Schweitzer m nova scince nov may 2009 cross/tv/21726
     
  20. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Polystrate fossils



    [​IMG]


    Often trees are petrified connecting multiple layers of rock strata supposed separated by hundreds of millions of years proving 100% positive they were deposited around the same time not over millions of years.


    Bent Rock Strata
    [​IMG]


    all these layers at certain spots are bent showing they all formed while wet around the same time otherwise they would have harden and broke.


    “In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition”
    Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3–15. Address in ref. 12




    Flat Gaps



    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]



    “Paraconformities, or flat gaps, pose a serious problem for the concept of long geologic ages. On the surface of our restless earth, during the period of the gap with the proposed millions of years of weathering, tectonic activity, and drifting of continents, you have either deposition or erosion of the sedimentary layers. If there is deposition there is no gap because the layers just keep building up. If there is erosion the contact surface (underlayer) should be highly irregular, and not flat. The flatness of the gaps indicates little time has occurred at the gaps.The flat gaps, with their incredibly widespread sedimentary layers just above and below, severely challenge the many millions of years proposed for the standard geologic time scale. The complete absence of the deep erosion expected at these gaps over their alleged long ages is very difficult to explain within the long-age uniformitarian paradigm.”
    -‘Flat gaps’ in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages Ariel A. Roth


    Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples

    If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old.

    Even if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1998 alone, the scientific literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record, supposedly spanning more than 500 million years. All contained radiocarbon “
    -Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney


    Paul Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.


    It has even been found in diamonds.


    R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287

    J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research InitiativeHYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/carbon-14#fnMark_1_14_1", eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630. D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.
     
  21. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,646
    Likes Received:
    39,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one gives a crap about your personal reasons!

    This is about PROVIDING CREDIBLE EVIDENCE!

    Yet another data dump FAILURE on your part!

    DEFLECTION #6 without any shred of credible evidence to support your IMAGINARY deity.
     
  22. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,646
    Likes Received:
    39,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DEFLECTION #7 without any shred of credible evidence to support your IMAGINARY deity.

    DEFLECTION #8 without any shred of credible evidence to support your IMAGINARY deity.

    DEFLECTION #9 without any shred of credible evidence to support your IMAGINARY deity.

    Sad!
     
  23. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male


    Simple logic tells us, lack of belief in something, is a belief. I do not believe the moon is made of green cheese, this is both a lack of belief in the moon being made of green cheese and a belief in it not being made of green cheese.


    Yes sorry to hurt your feelings, but part of a debate is for you to defend your imaginary beliefs with evidence, or at least attempt to defend them when shown false as i have done so. Not only can you not support your faith, you cant show why to believe in it when it is shown false.


    I am unsure you are reading my posts then.
     
  24. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Irreducible complexity

    There are many examples of biological systems that could not have arisen one at a time over long periods of time, but had to be there together at same time. An example, certain protein machines are needed to read DNA, but the protein machines themselves are codded for in the DNA. Or that the heart kidney and lung all work together, without any one of them the others could not survive. Enzymes controlled dna systems replication

    dna controlled rna systems transcription, rna controlled protein sythesis translation


    According to evolution this toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all phyla, before first appearance of phyla, prior to Cambrian explosion, prior to muticulular life. The gens that control body plans had to originate, when there were no bodies to control embryonic development.Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plans—and these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the various phyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the ‘Developmental Genetic Toolkit’. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phyla—in other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian— prior to the origin of multicellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos.

    At the point when the modern animal body plans first emerged [half a billion years ago] just about all the genes that are used in modern organisms to make embryos were already there. They had evolved in the single-celled world but they weren’t doing embryogenesis [Mazur’s braces]” (Stuart Newman, p. 52).
    Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot ‘look ahead’ and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the ‘tools’ for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization.


    Stuart Newman’s paper, which “served as the centerpiece of the Altenberg symposium” (Mazur, p. 12), claims that all 35 or so animal phyla physically self-organized by the time of the Cambrian explosion, and selection followed later as a ‘stabilizer’ of the self-organized novelties.

    Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321). A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
    North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010



    How do things like immune system and digestive system evolve?


    There are many things like the bacteria flagelum that has 40 parts that would not work together unless all there from beginning.

    The heart and placenta. A pregnant woman’s placenta secretes progesterone, a hormone that signals her tiny baby’s cells to take up less cholesterol. Cholesterol is a vital component of all body cells, including heart cells, and the placenta regulates cholesterol levels. Thus, the healthy development of a baby’s heart depends on the mother’s placenta. Likewise, the placental cells would fail to manufacture progesterone or perform their other vital tasks without a blood supply, which the mother’s heart generates. Thus, the placenta and heart function interdependently to knit a baby.So, which came first? The heart could not have come first since it would not have formed without the placenta. But if the placenta came first, it could not have worked without a heart. Both organs had to arise simultaneously, pointing toward a sudden miracle!



    The Cambrian Explosion

    To be honest , to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies Darwinism, something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory” -Walter remine p 26 JOC 2012 26 [1]

    In the early Cambrian Rocks 100 phylum [only 30 living today, phylum is largest category of organism species, genus, family etc. ] Are found in the "lowest" level of rocks called the Cambrian. It is were life first appears in the fossil record. So more diversity of life appears there, than alive today, with no fossils before it at all. No transitional forms for them.There are vast numbers—billions—of fossils of thousands of different species of complex creatures in the Cambrian,—and below it is next to nothing. The vast host of transitional species leading up to the complex Cambrian species are totally missing. Darwin said about the Cambrian explosion I can give no satisfactory answer.

    all of the known animal bodies plans seem to have appeared in the Cambrian”
    -Rudolf raff evolutionary biologist 2009



    “Cambrian period of only 20mya”
    Richard Dawkins the greatest show on earth


    It know appears that this Cambrian explosion during which nearly all the extinct animal phyla have emerged lasted only 6-10 million yearsAnd we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” -Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), p. 229.

    "First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form. The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits." —*Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56

    The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” -Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

    Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian, and none are ever found beneath it in the Precambrian ( *Preston Cloud, "Pseudofossils: A Plea for Caution," in Geology, November 1973, pp. 123-127).




    Origin of Sexually Reproduction


    Reproduction needs complete complementary reproductive organs, but evolution is not goal orientated or able to plan ahead, how could all the complex organs develop over thousands of generations when the organism cannot produce without them? And suppose to happen in same place and time?

    Complexity of reproductive system

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made


    Origin of non Material Things like Information, Love, Memory, Laws of Logic, Science, Morality etc

    If evolution were true and all there was is just matter and motion. How could things like love memory morality information exist? If evolution were true, science would not make sense.
     
  25. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Science only Makes Sense in a Biblical Worldview


    If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
    -C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


    Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
    -John Lennox prof fellow of mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university 2009


    Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

    Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

    Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.

    But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.



    Design and Complexity


    • If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
    "Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:] ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon he requires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design." —*Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence, p. 23.


    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    -Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.


    So it seems to me the clear answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation. There are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.

    If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimeter across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1
    -Feringa, B. L. 2000. Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408 (6809): 151-154.


    biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information. each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over, and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt?

    The DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were , how many and when.
    Some functions of cellular machines DNA maintenance robots that proofread information, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice in corrections, and rewind the strands

    • Intracellular elevators

    • Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports

    • Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states

    • Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion

    • Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor

    • A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks
    A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Real engines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2
    Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.

    Biovision harvard

    http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/

    protein being made


    An adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections,d more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.e
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html

    if all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin!”
    -In the beginig walt brown


    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI3.html

    Two free quick videos on complexity

    http://creation.com/DNA-repair-enzyme

    free 4 part video of the complexity of the human reproduction systems

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made

    the hearing ear

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/hearing-ear/hearing-ear

    the seeing eye

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/seeing-eye/seeing-eye



    Fully-Developed Organs

    All species appear fully developed, not partly developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.


    Law of Thermodynamics

    evolution teaches matter is not conservative but self originating - the first law of thermodynamics disproves this

    first law -energy cannot by itself be created or destroyed . energy may be changed from one form into another but the total amount remains unchanged the sum total of the energy (or its matter) will always remain the same

    no new matter or energy will make itself. since matter /energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself only a outside agency or power can make or destroy it. the creation of the universe must be non material because if it was material it would be subject to decay like all material, so the creator must be non material spiritual and eternal psalm 90.2


    The Second Law of Thermodynamics

    Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.

    This law is completely constant with creation from order to disorder. Stars blow up, run out of fuel, mutations kill destroy, things go from complex to disorganized. We see stars dying not being created, life is not just pooping up around us. You have to make repairs to your car and house when things are left to themselves they disintegrate deteriorate, most jobs are because of the second law. We have never observed the opposite things going from disorder to order less complex to more[without outside intelligence].
     

Share This Page