Reply With QuoteUm, no. Not at all. This is not a multiple choice situation.Originally Posted by megadebt
/\/\ S'what?...False dichotomy? This is most definitely one of those instances in life that's restriced to an 'either-or' option...One is true and one is false...No homemeade hybrids allowed here...We don't get to mix and match and make up the facts of reality just because they real ones are unsettling to us....
We don't get to draw up our own comfort creation and pass it off as history/science...If one idea is true here, automatically - the other one is false...Any BS doctrine which tries to blend these two diametrically opposed ideas is most definitely NOT partaking of the rules of The Scientific Method ...
Um, no. Not at all. This is not a multiple choice situation.
I represent the angry, gun toting meat eating people. ~ Denis Leary
The same shepherd that protects the flock leads them to the slaughterhouse.
Of course it is...Think about it for a moment...well, for several minutes...There's a slate of questions that should immediately arise when you subject any hybrid, bastarized amalgam to a test of logic....various logical absurdities arise from trying to blend the two, completely incongruous ideas...I'm sure you can list a few if you try...Fact of the matter is the Biological Evolution is beautiful, grand and complex...Creationism is borderline retarded...The two don't mix.
If evolution is wrong it does not automatically prove creation. There could be something else at play that we're not even aware of.
jwreck (04-03-2011)
Sure, right...Something being wrong doesn't automatically make the alternate ideology true by default...But, Bio Evolution needn't worry about whether it's Explanatory Power, or its function to serve as the foundation for ALL the other, many branches of science is in jeopardy...The whole thing is quite stable, despite the stray kook coming out of the wordwork, claiming that the theory is on shaky ground.
When one attempts to merge Bio Evolution and Creationism to form some sorta unscientific mish-mosh then everyone at the table loses...Such an endeavor is even worse, much worse than pure, unadultarted YE Creationism...because it seems to make it alright to just go and subjectively merge all kinds of incongruous parts together to create a Frankenstein picture of our origins...It's bad news for scientific advancement.
We are all 'animated flesh' here on this planet...Humans, Rhinos, Lions, Pigs, Salamanders and Salmon are all examples of animated flesh...We don't need to inject the magical concept of 'the soul' at any point to animate the flesh when we already have a working method to do the job...What separates the consciousness of a rodent and Human?...Isn't it a matter of level of degree and nothing else?
At what point on the timeline of human evolution would the great abstainer in the sky suddenly inject 'the soul' into our species anyway? Which specific day during our evolutionary timeline marks the distinction between a souless species and one that had souls deeply imbedded? See how absurd the concept is when you think about it a bit...At what point along the timeline is a God necessary at all? What function would he serve, other than to just set the whole thing into motion and then back away, right? So, isn't it more likely that some law of physics is at the root of that particular equation, and not some guiding hand with real intention?
Sorry, you lost me at bio-evolution is the basis for all other science.
I represent the angry, gun toting meat eating people. ~ Denis Leary
The same shepherd that protects the flock leads them to the slaughterhouse.
Look at 'Chemistry'...closely...This branch of science makes absolutely NO sense, except through the eyes of Evolution...Check this out which follows...A few posts back I said that I wanted to bring to light a few things that usually get overlooked as evidence for Evolution, but which most certainly are...They're things which are staring us right in the face, but we somehow don't see them...I'll bring one up right now since I mentioned Chemistry...
Is anyone familar with the concept of 'Self-Organizing Dynamics'? You could take a moment out to look it up on various sites on the web...An extremely entertaining science series is available free on You Tube, called 'The Swimme Series'...and, in Episode 4 of this series they describe what it is...What it is an IMMUTABLE LAW of this universe that you and I, and everyone else inhabits...It's a principle that always holds in every single situation, and absolutely nothing can throw it outta whack....because, that's what immutable laws do...They don't move or change.
THIS Self Organizing Dynamics business is an OBSERVABLE FACT about our own Universe...In fact, you already know all about this particular phenomena, even though you've never consciously considered it from this particular perspective, never acknowledged the fact that it absolutely proves that we all happen to live in a universe where Evolution is the supreme fact of nature...But, you already know it's true and probably have accepted its truth value since you were in Middle School.
We all live in a self-organizing Universe...The Universe, thus far, has assembled itself...I'm not talking about Evolution on the large scale, although that's an example of the process as well...We'll save the large-scale bit for another time...What I'm talking about it on the small-scale, the microscopic, the ATOMIC and MOLECULAR LEVEL...That's the domain of self-organizing dynamics.
When ATOMS of one element are introduced to an environment containing atoms of another element, what happens?...Say, we're talking about Oxygen and Hydrogen...What happens?...Depending on factors like atomic weight and how many electrons, neutrons and protons are coming and going, surpluses and deficits - what happens?....You KNOW the answer here...The REALITY of the matter is that ATOMS WILL automatically assemble themselves into more complex compounds know as MOLECULES, based on the fundamental laws of chemistry...Self ORGANIZATION is a very real fundamental premise of the entire universe...That is self organization solely based on scientific theory at work here, all accomplished without any divine intervention...a reliance on underlying, foundational laws.
When Carbon, instead of Hydrogen atoms are introduced to a group of Oxygen atoms, what is the result of that particular meeting? Other, complex molecules are formed. Naturally. Automatically. Evolutionarily...This is a naturally-occurring phenomena which is a BASIC LAW of the universe...It IS applicable everywhere in the entire universe, as far as we know. ATOMS will SELF-ASSEMBLE themselves into larger, more complex forms, as dictated by the LAWS governing our Universe...NOW, REALLY THINK about this last sentence, good and hard...
Because, not only is it true and totally observable, but it also PROVES that we live in a Universe where SELF-ASSEMBLY is a natural and observable fact...And, if self-assembly is indeed a fact, then where can one possibly ever draw the line and place a restriction upon that process? How could you possibly say that some structures in the universe can self-assemble themselves at one particular level of complexity, but not at any higher levels of complexity? Subatomic particles lead to ATOMS, which lead to Molecules, which, in turn, form larger and more complex MOLECULAR CHAINS, and on and on upward to the level of organs, tissue and glorious human brain matter.
You can not, in good conscience, as an adherent and lover of rational thought, say that a line can be draw between one level of self-organization and any other!...It's irrational to draw that line of demarcation...anywhere. What 'Self-Organizing Dynamics' PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that The Theory of Evolution is a real and actual description of our Universe...It proves that Evolution could take place in a Universe without the aid of any guiding hand of divinity, without the help of any supernatural entity...What 'SOD' proves is that once the system (the elemental ingredients and the LAWS) are set into motion, all one has to do is kick back and watch the story unfold.
The fact of 'Self-Organizing Dynamics' proves that no God is necessary for subtle, yet consistent increases in complexity or increases in accumulated information...But, it's not like other, equally perplexing questions don't arise from this Godless Universe scenario...Even though I've most definitely just dumped something of huge, immense value and scope onto the side of Evolution in the ongoing debate, it doesn't mean that other questions don't arise from the reality of the 'SOD' phenomena...If you happen to be a thinker, the first thing that comes to mind is WHY exactly do we find the LAWS of Chemistry, or the law of the Universe in general, to be exactly as they are? Why are they not some other laws instead of these? Who, or (much more likely) WHAT process was responsible for setting them to these precise variables?
Last edited by megadebt; 04-03-2011 at 08:57 PM.
Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, CMI–Australia
A Response to Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States by Lawrence S. Lerner Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation 26 September 2000
Introduction
Lawrence Lerner is a Skeptic and a retired professor of condensed matter physics. His recent report, supposedly on US State science teaching, has grabbed news headlines for its grades of all 50 state curricula. One would think that an assessment of ‘good science’ and ‘bad science’ would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student. But no, these ‘science teaching’ grades are based solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide.
Ten states scored ‘A’, meaning (in Lerner’s opinion) ‘Treatment of evolution is very good or excellent’; the grades drop as evolution is treated less dogmatically, while one state (Kansas) received an ‘F-’ for allegedly ‘removing all references to biological evolution’. As documented below, Lerner’s report contains much in the way of rhetoric and logical fallacies and little of real science of the type that put men on the moon, cures diseases, etc.
How important is evolution to science, really?
Lerner claims that evolution occupies a ‘central place’ and has a ‘unifying role’ in the life sciences, and the title even hints that the physical sciences are affected. However, as shown above, since he has not defined ‘evolution’ properly, the claim is unsound. Certainly, it is important (and trivially obvious) that things change, but what exactly would be lost from real science if the GTE were disbelieved? Was it really necessary for me to believe that microbes changed into mice, magnolias and man to perform research on vibrational spectroscopy and superconductivity? I challenge Lerner to similarly name a single discovery in his own speciality of the physics of condensed matter (i.e. matter that is not gaseous — solids and liquids) that had the slightest thing to do with believing that particles changed into people without any intelligent guidance.
Conclusion
Lerner’s ‘report’ on teaching ‘science’ is really a work of advocacy of teaching ‘goo-to-you-via-the-zoo’ evolution. Because this is essential for atheism, it must be taught at all costs, even if it means using discredited evidence. Lerner’s work also displays a deliberate fudging of meanings about the word ‘evolution’ and misrepresents what creationists actually teach. And he fails to demonstrate that evolution is essential for science, and he refuses to acknowledge the creationist basis for modern science itself, as well as the continuing contributions by creationists.
[Excerpts from Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’? The whole article can be read here: http://creation.com/whos-really-push...ner#importance
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Immune Systems
How could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize the best defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.
If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense (a). Obviously, for each organism to have survived, this information must have all been there from the beginning. Again, creation.
Figure 17: White Blood Cell. A white blood cell is stalking the green bacterium, shown at the lower right. Your health, and that of many animals, depends on the effectiveness of these “search-and-destroy missions.” Consider the capabilities and associated equipment the white blood cell must have to do its job. It must identify friend and foe. Once a foe is detected, the white blood cell must rapidly locate and overtake the invader. Then the white blood cell must engulf the bacterium, destroy it, and have the endurance to repeat this many times. Miniaturization, fuel efficiency, and compatibility with other parts of the body are also key requirements. The equipment for each function requires careful design. Unless all this worked well from the beginning of life, a requirement that rules out evolution, bacteria and other agents of disease would have won, and we would not be here to marvel at these hidden abilities in our bodies.
A few “stem cells” in your bone marrow produce more than 100 billion of these and other types of blood cells every day. Each white blood cell moves on its own at up to 30 microns (almost half the diameter of a human hair) each minute. So many white blood cells are in your body that their total distance traveled in one day would circle the earth twice (© Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH).
(a.) “We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.” Behe, p. 138.
“Unfortunately, we cannot trace most of the evolutionary steps that the immune system took. Virtually all the crucial developments seem to have happened at an early stage of vertebrate evolution, which is poorly represented in the fossil record and from which few species survive. Even the most primitive extant vertebrates seem to rearrange their antigen receptor genes and possess separate T and B cells, as well as MHC molecules. Thus has the immune system sprung up fully armed.” Avrion Mitchison, “Will We Survive?” Scientific American, Vol. 269, September 1993, p. 138.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1027797]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Living Technology 1
Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems—including those involving electrical, acoustical, mechanical, chemical, and optical phenomena. Detailed studies of various animals also have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that the world’s best designers, using the most sophisticated technologies, cannot duplicate. Examples of these designs include molecular-size motors in most living organisms (a); advanced technologies in cells (b); miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises, and whales; frequency-modulated “radar” and discrimination systems of bats (c); efficient aerodynamic capabilities of hummingbirds; control systems, internal ballistics, and the combustion chambers of bombardier beetles (d); precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds, fish, and insects (e); and especially the self-repair capabilities of almost all forms of life. No component of these complex systems could have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage until the component’s evolution was complete. All evidence points to intelligent design.
a. “Life implies movement. Most forms of movement in the living world are powered by tiny protein machines known as molecular motors.” Manfred Schliwa and Günther Woehlke, “Molecular Motors,” Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. 759.
b. “We would see [in cells] that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.
“What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle.” Denton, p. 329.
c. “Ounce for ounce, watt for watt, it [the bat] is millions of times more efficient and more sensitive than the radars and sonars contrived by man.” Pitman, p. 219.
d. Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975), pp. 2–9.
Thomas Eisner and Daniel J. Aneshansley, “Spray Aiming in Bombardier Beetles: Jet Deflection by the Coanda Effect,” Science, Vol. 215, 1 January 1982, pp. 83–85.
Behe, pp. 31–36.
e. Jason A. Etheredge et al., “Monarch Butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) Use a Magnetic Compass for Navigation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 96, No. 24, 23 November 1999, pp. 13845–13846.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences46.html]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Is this how you communicate, through cut-and-pastes? If it is, then there's no chance of reaching the logic and reasoning centers of your brain...I've just pointed towards something absolutely frikkin HUGE, man...something staring you in the face every single day, something which easily proves the fact that WE DO LIVE in a self-organizing universe, one that 'EVOLVES'...And, what do you do? You give me more malarky from the outcasts occupying the fringes of sceintific study...
The overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors throughout the world believe in the facts of evolution...You are always going to find dissidents on the fringes of any given industry or field you examine...The world wouldn't be any fun at all if everyone was completely sane. The nutters are what provides entertainment.
You didn't reply to anything I've said up there, but you go and hit me up with some claim about how 'immune systems' couldn't have possibly evolved...But, what's the exact nature of your grievance here, friend...I gotta know what precisely you're finding fault with the system and how it got its footing...so, then I can straighten things out for ya.
Last edited by megadebt; 04-04-2011 at 09:07 PM.
Why do you believe the information I shared is more malarky from the outcasts occupying the fringes of sceintific study? Are you able to refute any of the points presented?
Since no one knows everything there is to know about anything, I thought it would be more helpful to share information from those who do know the subject under discussion, rather than giving you my ignorant opinions.
There are many scientists and doctors who believe in the myth of evolution because they haven’t examined it in the light of science. Many others who have discovered the truth keep it to themselves because they fear losing their jobs if they let it be known evolution is a myth.The overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors throughout the world believe in the facts of evolution...You are always going to find dissidents on the fringes of any given industry or field you examine...The world wouldn't be any fun at all if everyone was completely sane. The nutters are what provides entertainment.
Until Charles Darwin popularised[1] the idea of evolution in the middle of the 19th century, most people including the vast majority of scientists were creationists. Over the next 50 to 100 years, however, evolution came to be the ruling paradigm in the biological sciences in particular, and science in general.
In the early 1960s, creationism began a resurgence, followed a few decades later by intelligent design. Once these ideas had started to gain a degree of popularity, however, many people, committed to evolutionary thought, began to oppose these competing views of the history of life. (These people generally consider Intelligent design to be creationism in disguise, although there are significant differences between the two ideas.)
However, this opposition has not been merely academic debate of the merits of the competing ideas, but a concerted effort to suppress creationism and intelligent design. This opposition has included keeping the ideas out of the education system and marginalizing or ridiculing the ideas in the mass media.
It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].[2]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Suppres...s_to_evolution
Apparently you missed the article I shared titled: “Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?”You didn't reply to anything I've said up there, but you go and hit me up with some claim about how 'immune systems' couldn't have possibly evolved...But, what's the exact nature of your grievance here, friend...I gotta know what precisely you're finding fault with the system and how it got its footing...so, then I can straighten things out for ya.
Can you refute the article about the immune system disproving evolution, rather than just complaining about it? Did you notice the confirmation by the scientists quoted?
The exact nature of my grievance against the belief in evolution is science disproves it and to continue to believe in a disproved idea is destructive. For example:
Opinions about origins have profound social consequences and even affect the way we think. Consider the following perspectives and some responses. Notice that all these perspectives presume evolution occurred, despite the scientific evidence. We recognize that some people believe that God used evolution to create and that evolution is compatible with the Bible; however, a careful reading shows, in dozens of ways, that it is not.
1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?
2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?
Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.
3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?
Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.
4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.
5. Communism. Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book “contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].” Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.
Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it. During that time, he became an atheist.
6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.
Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.
Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.
7. Relativism. There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.
Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes—and He has.
8. Social Darwinism. If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, government, science, education, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.
Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings.
9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.
Response: That philosophy is called secular humanism (a humane, intellectual-sounding term) that claims God is irrelevant and the Bible is fiction. Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.
10. New Age Movement. If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?
Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.
11. Marriage. If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt?
Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, and said they should become one.
12. Racism. If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.
Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his Aryan master race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean that evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Belief in evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion.
13. Abortion. We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right? Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem. We must guide our destiny.
Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child merely a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human.
Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, pass through stages that mimic their evolutionary steps. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria, which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later, unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So, human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.
Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 130 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact worldwide, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.
Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human when you were one cell. While you were in your mother’s womb, she was your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove a person from the human race or justify killing that person.
Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolutionist perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.
Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ412.html]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Living Technology 2
Figure 18: Arctic Tern Migration Routes and Cockpit. The Arctic Tern, a bird of average size, navigates across oceans with the skill normally associated with navigational equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft. A round trip for the Tern might be 22,000 miles. The Tern’s “electronics” are highly miniaturized, extremely reliable, maintenance free, and easily reproduced. Furthermore, this remarkable bird needs no training. If the equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft could not have evolved, how could the Tern’s more amazing “equipment” have evolved?
Equally amazing is the monarch butterfly that flies thousands of miles from breeding grounds as far north as Canada to wintering grounds as far south as Mexico. Processing information in a brain the size of a pin head, it navigates using a magnetic compass and, to a lesser extent, the Sun.
Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with miniature motors at up to 15 body-lengths per second (f), equivalent to a car traveling 150 miles per hour—in a liquid. These extremely efficient, reversible motors rotate at up to 100,000 revolutions per minute (g). Each shaft rotates a bundle of whiplike flagella that acts as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and stators, are similar in many respects to electrical motors (h). However, their electrical charges come from a flow of protons, not electrons. The bacteria can stop, start, and change speed, direction, and even the “propeller’s” shape (i). They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit inside the circular cross section of a human hair (j).
Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and, therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals (k).
Some plants have motors that are one-fifth the size of bacterial motors (l). Increasing worldwide interest in nanotechnology is showing that living things are remarkably designed—beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.
Figure 19: Bacterial Motor. Drawing based on a microphotograph of the flagellum of a salmonella bacterium.
Figure 20: Illustration of a Bacterial Motor. Although no one completely understands how these tiny motors work, many studies have deduced the presence of the above components.
f. David H. Freedman, “Exploiting the Nanotechnology of Life,” Science, Vol. 254, 29 November 1991, pp. 1308–1310.
Tom Koppel, “Learning How Bacteria Swim Could Set New Gears in Motion,” Scientific American, Vol. 265, September 1991, pp. 168–169.
Howard C. Berg, “How Bacteria Swim,” Scientific American, Vol. 233, August 1975, pp. 36–44.
g. Y. Magariyama et al., “Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,” Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, p. 752.
h. Could a conventional electrical motor be scaled down to propel a bacterium through a liquid? No. Friction would overcome almost all movement. This is because the ratio of inertial-to-viscous forces is proportional to scale. In effect, the liquid becomes stickier the smaller you get. Therefore, the efficiency of the bacterial motor itself, which approaches 100% at slow speeds, is remarkable and currently unexplainable.
i. C. Wu, “Protein Switch Curls Bacterial Propellers,” Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 86.
j. Yes, you read this correctly. The molecular motors are 25 nanometers in diameter while an average human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.
k. “Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate. ... How could this have evolved?” E. Peter Greenberg, “Tiny Teamwork,” Nature, Vol. 424, 10 July 2003, p. 134.
Bonnie L. Bassler, “How Bacteria Talk to Each Other: Regulation of Gene Expression by Quorum Sensing,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1 December 1999, pp. 582–587.
l. “...the smallest rotary motors in biology. The flow of protons propels the rotation...” Holger Seelert et al., “Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant Motor,” Nature, Vol. 405, 25 May 2000, pp. 418–419.
“The ATP synthase [motor] not only lays claim to being nature’s smallest rotary motor, but also has an extremely important role in providing most of the chemical energy that aerobic and photosynthetic organisms need to stay alive.” Cross, Richard L. “Turning the ATP Motor,” Nature, Vol. 427, 29 January 2004, pp. 407–408.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp2747215]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
You realize what you're doing, right? At least, on some level you must. You are literally drowning yourself in tons of bad science and irrational ideas in the attempt of convincing yourself that the facts of this world aren't really as they appear to the logic-abiding, critical observer...
That's precisely what you need to be focusing on now, at this given point....changing yourself into a critical observer...That transition only comes from strictly adhering to the rules of the scientific method. To think scientifically is to think rationally...Plain and simple...To think rationally is to squash all 'magical thinking' before it ever has the chance to take root.
You have to ask yourself, 'What is really to be gained from believing in this fib of creationism?'...Do you really get a true sense of purpose from believing that some super large Primate, one who posseses only Primate characteristics (the wants, need, desires, emotions of us Primates) that this huge, tragically flawed, human 'being' lives high above the skydome enclosing our planet?
What is to be achieved by holding on to this ancient means of understanding our puzzling world? We already have all the facts, bro...It's just a matter of taking a teaspoon of sugar to make those facts go down the ol' hatch and take up residence where they belong. Try to think rationally, man...Just try it for a week...Start by really reading through my last post on the 'self-organizing dynamics'...See how absolutely honest and obvious it all is when you truly embrace rationality.
Last edited by megadebt; 04-05-2011 at 03:25 PM.
The Validity of Thought 1
If life is ultimately the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes (a).
a. “But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 313.
“For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), p. 209.
“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.” C. S. Lewis, God In the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 52–53.
“Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense. But Naturalism [evolution], as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort.” C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947), p. 21.
C. S. Lewis, “The Funeral of a Great Myth,” Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), p. 89.
“If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must have been an act of thought.” James H. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, new revised edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1932), p. 181.
“A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.” Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p. 62.
“One of the absurdities of materialism [the belief that nothing exists except the material] is that it assumes that the world can be rationally comprehensible only if it is entirely the product of irrational, unguided mechanisms.” Phillip E. Johnson, “The Wedge in Evolutionary Ideology: It’s History, Strategy, and Agenda,” Theology Matters, Vol. 5, No. 2, March/April 1999, p. 5.
Phillip E. Johnson has also made the point that intelligence might produce intelligence. However, for lifeless, inorganic matter to produce intelligence, as the theory of evolution claims, would be an astounding miracle.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences47.html]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
The Validity of Thought 2
By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. “Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forces” (b).
A related issue is the flexibility and redundancy of the human brain, which evolution or natural selection would not produce. For example, every year brain surgeons successfully remove up to half of a person’s brain. The remaining half gradually takes over functions of the removed half. Also, brain functions are often regained after portions of the brain are accidently destroyed. Had humans evolved, such accidents would have been fatal before these amazing capabilities developed. Darwin recognized an aspect of this phenomenal capability of the brain (c).
b. Phillip Johnson, “The Demise of Naturalism,” World, 3 April 2004, p. 38.
c. “Behind Darwin’s discomfiture [on how the human brain evolved] was the dawning realization that the evolution of the brain vastly exceeded the needs of prehistoric man. This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use.” Richard M. Restak, The Brain: The Last Frontier (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979), p. 59.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences47.html]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Life Science Conclusions 1
When Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, the “evolutionary tree” had only a few gaps. Believers in his new theory thought that these gaps would be filled as scientific knowledge increased. Just the opposite has happened. As science has progressed, these “missing links” have multiplied enormously, and the obstacles to “bridging” these gaps have become even more obvious. For example, in Darwin’s day, all life fell into two categories (or kingdoms): animals and plants. Today, it is generally accepted that life falls into five radically different kingdoms, of which animals and plants comprise only two. (None of the five include viruses, which are complex and unique in their own way.) In the 1800s, the animal kingdom was divided into four animal phyla; today there are about forty.
Darwin suggested that the first living creature evolved in a “warm little pond.” Today, almost all evolutionary biologists will privately admit that science has no explanation for how life evolved. We now know that the chance formation of the first living cell is a gigantic leap, vastly more improbable than for bacteria to evolve into humans. In Darwin’s day, a cell was thought to be about as simple as a ping-pong ball. Even today, many evolutionists think bacteria—one of the first forms of life to evolve—are simple. However, bacteria are marvelously integrated and complex manufacturing facilities with many mysteries yet to be understood, such as bacterial motors and communication among bacteria. Furthermore, cells come in two radically different types—those with a nucleus and those without. The evolutionary leap from one to the other is staggering to imagine.
The more evolutionists learn about life, the greater complexity they find. A century ago there were no sophisticated microscopes. Consequently, gigantic leaps from single- to multiple-cell organisms were grossly underestimated. Each type of cell in a multicellular organism has a unique job that is controlled by only part of the organism’s DNA. If that organism evolved, its delicate controls (directing which of the myriad of DNA instructions to follow, which to ignore, and when) must also have evolved. Had it not evolved perfectly the first time, that organism would have been diseased. If that first unique cell could not reproduce, the new function would disappear. If just one reproducing cell is out of control, the organism would have one type of cancer.
Development of the computer has also given us a better appreciation of the brain’s intricate electronics, extreme miniaturization, and vast storage capabilities. The human eye, which Darwin admitted made him shudder, was only a single jump in complexity. [See Endnote 9b here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1033193] We now know there are at least a dozen radically different kinds of eyes, each requiring similar jumps if evolution happened. Likewise, the literal leap we call “flight” must have evolved not once, but on at least four different occasions: for birds, some insects, mammals (bats), and reptiles (pterosaurs). Fireflies produce light without heat, a phenomenon called bioluminescence. Other species, including certain fish, crustaceans, squids, plants, bacteria, and fungi, also have lighting systems. Did all these remarkable capabilities evolve independently?
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp3173574]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Life Science Conclusions 2
Figure 21: Integration and Compatibility. An organ is a complex structure of different types of tissues and cells, all of which work together to perform a specific function such as seeing, hearing, digesting, or pumping. A system, such as the nervous system, circulatory system, skeletal system, or reproductive system, consists of related organs and other tissues and cells that have even broader functions. A healthy body has all its systems working properly. Life depends on a broad, compatible, and complex hierarchy: molecules −−> cells −−> tissues −−> organs −−> systems −−> body −−> other organisms −−> the environment. All are carefully balanced and integrated with each other.
Arbitrarily changing one component at any level will often be harmful at that level and to the vertical hierarchy. For example, change one type of molecule throughout a category of cells, and the result may be damaged cells and a diseased body. Environmentalists and ecologists are aware of this critical balance (regarding, say, the spotted owl and the environment), but often they fail to ask, “Who or what created this balance?” Some fail to see the incredible complexity, integration, and systems engineering that extends throughout the universe—from carbon atoms to galaxies to physical laws.
Humans are only one of millions of different organisms. To integrate all organisms into a living ecosystem requires stupendous design and balance. If evolution happened, time and natural processes alone must have maintained a livable environment for most forms of life as each new organism came into existence and proliferated. No global contaminants, plagues, predators, or famines could be allowed for billions of years. Imagine what would happen if a few organisms at the base of the food chain became extinct.
Who or what has the ability to design, construct, and harmoniously integrate and maintain all of life? Time and natural processes, as evolution states, or an infinitely intelligent Creator?
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp3173574]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Life Science Conclusions 3
Before 1977, it was thought that sunlight provided the energy for all life. We now know that some organisms, living at widely separated locations on the dark ocean floor, use only chemical and thermal energy. For one energy-conversion system to evolve into another would be like changing, by thousands of rare accidents, the wood-burning heating systems of widely separated homes to electricity—but slowly, one accident each year. The occupants would risk freezing every winter. How such a system could evolve on different ocean floors, without solar energy, and in a cold, diluting environment has yet to be explained.
If evolution happened, many other giant leaps must also have occurred: the first photosynthesis, cold-blooded to warm-blooded animals, floating marine plants to vascular plants, placental mammals to marsupials, egg-laying animals to animals that bear live young, insect metamorphosis, the transition of mammals to the sea (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and manatees), the transition of reptiles to the sea (plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs), and on and on.
Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago, evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. The same gaps persist, and most paleontologists now admit that those predictions failed. Of course, the most famous “missing link” is between man and apes, but the term is deceiving. There is not merely one missing link, but thousands—a long chain—if the evolutionary tree were to connect man and apes (with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences).
Scientific advancements have shown that evolution is an even more absurd theory than it seemed in Darwin’s day. It is a theory without a mechanism. Not even appeals to long periods of time will allow simple organisms to “jump gaps” and become more complex and viable. In fact, as the next section will show, long periods of time make such leaps even less likely. Later in this book, you will see that those long, unimaginable time periods in which evolution was claimed were a result of a scientific blunder—failure to understand the origin of earth’s radioactivity.
Breeding experiments that many had hoped would demonstrate macroevolution have failed. The arguments used by Darwin and his followers are now discredited or, at best, in dispute, even among evolutionists. Finally, research during the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex. Just the design that most people can see around them obviously implies a designer. Oddly enough, evolutionists still argue against this design by using arguments which they spent a great deal of time designing. The theory of organic evolution is invalid.
As we leave the life sciences and examine the astronomical and physical sciences, we will see many other serious problems with evolutionary theories. If the Earth, the solar system, our galaxy, the universe, or even the heavier chemical elements could not have evolved, as now seems to be the case, then organic evolution could not even have begun.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp3173574]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks