It seems that the high majority of religious people think that evolution craps on their religion.
Creation and Evolution are not opposite to each other.
You can still believe in God and accept evolution, evolution does not even try to explain how everything began.
Accepting evolution (which at least is supported by science and quantifiable data) does NOT mean you don't believe in god.
Or are you going to tell me you think the earth is a few thousand years old and we descend from Adam and Eve?

And also if you are religious and try to explain by reason and facts the existence of god then you have already forfeited your faith. As the philosopher Kierkegaard once said, you have to take a leap of faith on the Christian paradoxes.

Religion is a man-made system and there are many religions. Evolution is mutually exclusive to some and not to others.

Evolution is mutually exclusive to the Bible. I've studied both. I know.


Actually, it depends on which "form" of evolution you are talking about.

The myth of evolution has itself evolved as new scientific evidence emerged disproving previous aspects of it.

For example, the lack of transitional forms gave birth to punctuated equilibria, which is nothing more than an attempt to explain why transitional forms do not exist, and a very silly explanation at that.


Actually, it is not.

Just like the so-called science that supports the safety of mercury amalgams or the so-called science that supports global warming, evolution is based on junk-science.

I love science and I am appalled at what evolution has done to the integrity of science. Here is a great example:

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted


The Bible does not say the Earth is a few thousand years old.

If you're an evolutionist, you also believe that all humans descended from a common ancestor. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


All relationships begin with faith. You may be surprised to find that the Bible does not ask that you simply believe it or simply believe God without evidence. In fact, the Bible provides evidence by many means, including foretelling the future and gematria.

I don't mean to offend you but you clearly know nothing more about the Bible than college textbooks have told you or the corrupt and lying Discovery Channel has taught you.

I highly recommend that you study the Bible for yourself and discover that—for the true intellect—it is the most amazing, compelling, and revealing book that you will experience.

How much deep study have you done on Evolution? There are many, many large holes in the theory that people call science...
1. No transitional forms
2. No record of species becoming another species, everything stays in kind. For that to be a scientific fact, you need proof, and there isn't any.
3. Carbon Dating is excruciatingly unreliable, and cannot rightly be called "science".
4. We know how old the earth really is, (because we know how old the sun is, and the earth couldn't be formed without it) and it is not old enough for the billions of years evolution calls for (Unless you believe in punctuated equillibrium, a completely unscientific and unreasonable theory)
5. The population curve puts the start of mankind back to a single pair about 5500 years back. (about the time of Noah)
6. The feather. The earliest forms of life ever discovered, and the earliest forms ever to live on the earth had feathers indistinguishable from today. No evolution there.
7. Almost all of the discovered "missing links" (which there should be millions of) were found to be fraudulent. Even Lucy is not a reliable example. The hallowed knee joint was found over a mile away and 200 feet lower, amongst other bones. Hardly a credible discovery.
8. Survival of the fittest doesn't explain why we have so much brain power that we don't use, why we see in color, why we fall in love, why we have a conscience etc.



I have more if you like. Everyone takes the religion aspect of this too far. It can have nothing to do with religion...it can have to do with reasoning. When I look at the two options (i have studied and continue to study them extensively) evolution makes no sense to me. To me, it makes more sense that intelligent design had an intelligent designer. I think the reason Evolutionists get so riled up about it is because you have some pretty tough questions to answer, that you just can't. Creationists have some tough questions to answer, but the answer is readily available and very simple.

Any responses to the above questions would be great to read...always up for some new material to examine.

I don't know what kind of evolution tells you how planets, stars and the universe came together.
Darwinian evolution:
NOT the Big Bang.
NOT The formation of life.
NOT The existence or non-existence of God.
NOT The Bible or anything in it.
NOT How the universe came into being or the meaning of existance.
Strawman argument
That does not proof anything, the fact that politics and greed sometimes twist research and data doesn't mean we can just discredit everything. Yes both in the name of science and religion people have twisted the truth for personal gain, has happened a lot in the past and will happen again

The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.
yea, single celled organisms

If god showed up doing fancy tricks in front of everyone, everyone would believe he exists, but it wouldn't be based on faith. There are many processes such as the holy trinity and resurrection that have to be taken by faith alone
Stories, not evidence. Jesus might have existed and have been one of the best leaders the world has known, but there is a chance his actions were glorified in the bible (written by men)
cheap shot, stop assuming <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
I do completely agree the bible is an infinite source of amazing storytelling and teaching of morals

Btw i forgot to login up there russ


There is Evidence of species changing
1. Paleontological evidence: Ancient fossils were found whose skulls were uniquely shaped similar to that of whales. The bone formations and elongated muzzles were similar to those of whales, esp. fish-hunters. You gradually see the legs disappearing as natural selection renders them unnecessary. There's Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, and Dorudon.

2. Morphological evidence: One example is that the inner ears of these fossils are shaped in intermediate forms similar to modern whales and modern artiodactyls: this is because the ears had to develop to be suitable for an aquatic environment.
The shape of the feet of these fossils is also uniquely similar to whales and artiodactyls.

3. Molecular Biological Evidence: When their genes are studied, whale genes are more similar to those of ungulates than any other mammals.

4. Vestigial Evidence: Vestigial pelvic bones, femora, tibiae, are found in modern whales. The fossil record shows a gradual diminishing of these bones. Whales also have vestigial olfactory nerves (needed for smell normally). Also, vestigial muscles for moving ears.

5. Embryological Evidence: The whale embryo retains primordial features that are abandoned later on: body hair, hind limb buds, ear pinnae, olfactory lobes of the brain (again, for smelling. These don't exist in adults). Embryos of baleen whales develop teeth, but these disappear before birth.

6. Geochemical Evidence: Whales had to move from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water. Fresh and salt water each have different isotopic ratios of oxygen, which is recorded in whale skeletons (namely, teeth). Earlier whale fossils have low ratios of heavy oxygen, while later whale fossils have more (mainly drinking salt water).

7. Paleoenvironmental Evidence: This is where we look at the other things these whale fossils were associated with. We predict that since earlier whales like Sinonyx were land mammals, we'd find these fossils among other terrestrial animals. Pakicetus was more adapted for water so we'd expect to see their fossils associated with aquatic critters, as well as unique sediment formations of low-lying wet terrestrial environments. Sure enough, this is the case.

8. Paleobiogeographic evidence: Land whales wouldn't have the mobility of aquatic whales, so we'd expect to find their fossils in a much more restricted geographic region. Sure enough, Sinonyx is found primarily in central Asia. Pakicetus is found only in Afghanistan.

9. Chronological Evidence: Since evolution is essentially forced by changing environments or invited by new opportunities, we should be able to detect some sensible reason as to why whales developed to move into the seas. During the early Cenozoic, whales had to fill in niches left over with the extinction of the dinosaurs. Large mesozoic reptile predators were gone, so mammals were free to conquer the seas. Whale fossils are consistently found in this restricted time frame.

I'm curious as to where you got the population of man to a single pair 5500 years back
The feather being one of the earliest forms of life not evolving doesn't proof anything
Finding all the missing links (if they weren't eroded), when the earth has gone through an infinite amount of change over time doesn't say anything, specially when we can't even find biological weapons, terrorist cells, etc in a single region with an immense occupational force and the best military.
And I am curious as to your sources on calling them all fraudulent. Hopefully it is a reliable source, not those similar to the government conspiracies that we caused 9/11.
Survival of the fittest doesn't have to explain those characteristics. We have brain power we don't use, but we are not at the finish line in evolution. Falling in love could be the best course of action for the survival of the offspring, small family group staying together over time (guess the divorce rate in the west is not helping much <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />) And conscience, hell it could be argued half the world lacks it, but I don't think we are alone in that department. While we have the higher levels of reasoning, animals don't go out in killing sprees either

If you ask ANY scientist, heck, any of the most fervent evolutionary proponents, you'll be told that no science (including evolution) is in any way infallible. They'll also say that if given sufficient counterevidence, evolution will be modified or discarded in time.

The reason any scientific postulate stands or falls is based on the evidence, an no scientist pretends otherwise. Evolution simply has massive amounts of evidence behind it.

The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

Not true. Read the beginning of Genesis. It says in the beginning god created heaven and earth. It puts the creation of earth in the same timeframe as the heavens, which was quite long ago. The geneology makes no inference as to the beginning of earth and man at the same time. I was going to leave the bible out of this, but since you brought it up.

If you're an evolutionist, you also believe that all humans descended from a common ancestor. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

yea, single celled organisms

Than your inference that the belief that we came from a single human pair being less than intelligent, is actually a contradiction.

If god showed up doing fancy tricks in front of everyone, everyone would believe he exists, but it wouldn't be based on faith. There are many processes such as the holy trinity and resurrection that have to be taken by faith alone.

I will leave that one alone, too biblical for this discussion.

I don't mean to offend you but you clearly know nothing more about the Bible than college textbooks have told you or the corrupt and lying Discovery Channel has taught you

cheap shot, stop assuming <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I don't see that as cheap, your comments about it thus far have not been accurate, what more can we assume than that you don't have more than a superficial education of it, but again due to the request in your post, let's leave the bible out of it.


There is Evidence of species changing
1. Paleontological evidence: Ancient fossils were found whose skulls were uniquely shaped similar to that of whales. The bone formations and elongated muzzles were similar to those of whales, esp. fish-hunters. You gradually see the legs disappearing as natural selection renders them unnecessary. There's Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, and Dorudon.

if Darwinism is true then the bat, monkey, pig, seal, and whale all evolved in gradual adaptive stages from a primitive rodent-like predecessor. This hypothetical common ancestor must have been connected to its diverse descendants by long linking chains of transitional intermediates* which in turn put out innumerable side branches. The intermediate links would have to be adaptively superior to their predecessors, and be in the process of developing the complex integrated organs required for aquatic life, flight, and so on. Fossil evidence that anything of the sort happened is thoroughly missing and in addition it is extremely difficult to imagine how the hypothetical intermediate steps could have been adaptive.
One can't make problems of this magnitude go away simply by announcing that there must be gaps in the fossil record. According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. What they discovered was that species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants, and "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

From time to time something is found that can be interpreted to support the Darwinian scenario. The importance of such a find is then exaggerated, and the mountains of negative evidence are quite unscientifically brushed aside. An example of Provine's purported "fossil ancestors of whales having small but still functioning legs." Basilosaurus is not an ancestor of modern whales. This oddity was a kind of serpentine sea monster that has important affinities with whales but looks sufficiently different that it was at first thought to be a reptile. (The name means "King Lizard.") Paleontologists report finding fossil leg and foot bones "in direct association with articulated skeletons of Basilosaurus." Upon reconstruction these are deemed to show vestigial hind limbs, which were too small to be used for swimming and which could not conceivably have supported the body on land. Possibly the limbs were used as guides for copulation, but that is only a guess.
There is additional circumstantial evidence which suggests a relationship between whales and land mammals. For example, modern whales have what appear to be rod-like vestiges of pelvic bones. You can call this relationship "evolution" if you like, but all you have done is to put a label on a mystery. What Darwinists want us to believe (and want to believe themselves) is that they know how mindless natural forces could have produced all those diverse mammals from an unknown common ancestor, and ultimately from a microorganism. The problem is that their theory doesn't fit the evidence

2. Morphological evidence: One example is that the inner ears of these fossils are shaped in intermediate forms similar to modern whales and modern artiodactyls: this is because the ears had to develop to be suitable for an aquatic environment.
The shape of the feet of these fossils is also uniquely similar to whales and artiodactyls.

Even today there are infinite species that display similarities to each other. This does not however dictate that they evolved from each other. It is speculation. No more "concrete" than looking at two paintings and speculating if they were made by the same artist. A guess doesn't constitute science. The hypothesis must be proved and to date, we have yet to prove that anything morphs into another species.

3. Molecular Biological Evidence: When their genes are studied, whale genes are more similar to those of ungulates than any other mammals.

again, not proof that they created different species, speculation.

4. Vestigial Evidence: Vestigial pelvic bones, femora, tibiae, are found in modern whales. The fossil record shows a gradual diminishing of these bones. Whales also have vestigial olfactory nerves (needed for smell normally). Also, vestigial muscles for moving ears.

Gill slits are an example of what evolutionists call vestigial organs. The idea is that sometime in the distant past these organs had a purpose, but they are no longer useful. Vestigial organs imply evolution. If man were created, there would be no reason for them. Evolutionists found 180 vestigial organs, most of which were muscles. Only six are still around. The rest are now known to be useful or even essential.

From 180 down to six is a pretty good drop in vestigial organs. Given a few more years, it is reasonable to think we might find functions for the rest of them too. Naturalists no longer stress vestigial organs. They have proved to be an embarrassment.



5. Embryological Evidence: The whale embryo retains primordial features that are abandoned later on: body hair, hind limb buds, ear pinnae, olfactory lobes of the brain (again, for smelling. These don't exist in adults). Embryos of baleen whales develop teeth, but these disappear before birth.

In 1868 Ernst Haeckel, an enthusiastic supporter of evolution, formulated his "fundamental biogenetic law." It states that an embryo goes through stages during which it resembles its ancestry. At one point, the human embryo has a feature resembling fish gills, so we must have had fish in our ancestry, concluded Haeckel.
According to Haeckel, everything in the animal kingdom descended from a gastrula, which is an early stage in most animals embryonic development. He faked evidence to support his claim. Haeckel was caught and admitted that some of his embryonic drawings were forgeries.
Notwithstanding, the gill slit misconception caught on and is still cited as evidence that humans evolved from fish. Although the pouches do superficially resemble fish gills, they have nothing to do with breathing. They are the early states of the lower jaw, ear, and neck including the thyroid and parathyroid glands. It's a feature of embryonic function, not evolution.
What this embryonic claim really proved was just how eager nineteenth century evolutionists were to use any argument, however specious, to further their cause.


6. Geochemical Evidence: Whales had to move from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water. Fresh and salt water each have different isotopic ratios of oxygen, which is recorded in whale skeletons (namely, teeth). Earlier whale fossils have low ratios of heavy oxygen, while later whale fossils have more (mainly drinking salt water).

This is following the assumption that they came from one another. If you wanted to actually prove this, it would have to be done as a standalone theory. Adaptations within species is different than changing species.

7. Paleoenvironmental Evidence: This is where we look at the other things these whale fossils were associated with. We predict that since earlier whales like Sinonyx were land mammals, we'd find these fossils among other terrestrial animals. Pakicetus was more adapted for water so we'd expect to see their fossils associated with aquatic critters, as well as unique sediment formations of low-lying wet terrestrial environments. Sure enough, this is the case.

This is baffling. Your saying that the fact that a land mammal's remains were found on land and an aquatic animals remains were found near water proves that they evolved into each other?


8. Paleobiogeographic evidence: Land whales wouldn't have the mobility of aquatic whales, so we'd expect to find their fossils in a much more restricted geographic region. Sure enough, Sinonyx is found primarily in central Asia. Pakicetus is found only in Afghanistan.

Again, this is no more proof of evolution than creation.

9. Chronological Evidence: Since evolution is essentially forced by changing environments or invited by new opportunities, we should be able to detect some sensible reason as to why whales developed to move into the seas. During the early Cenozoic, whales had to fill in niches left over with the extinction of the dinosaurs. Large mesozoic reptile predators were gone, so mammals were free to conquer the seas. Whale fossils are consistently found in this restricted time frame.

Much of the early material on evolution theorized that life came out of the seas...not from land into the sea. This point you are making though does not rule out that a species became the weaker and gave way to extinction and the growth in the population of another, now dominant species. I consistently see evolutionists pointing to "evidence" of evolution, when it can no more be ruled out as intelligent design or creation....which, is not very scientific, but rather, bias. How does this prove evolution and disprove creation?

I'm curious as to where you got the population of man to a single pair 5500 years back.

[b] The Evolution of Man Mathematically Disproved

INTRODUCTION

Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of science. Moreover, we should examine any new hypothesis with open minds, to see if it has in it anything truthful, helpful or advantageous. It should neither be accepted nor rejected simply because it is new. But if a theory is evidently or probably untrue, or pernicious, or at all harmful, it is to be rejected and condemned.

Some facts and objections are herein submitted to the serious seeker after truth, in the hope that a theory so out of harmony with the facts, and so destructive to the faith and the cherished hopes of man, may be completely discarded. As Evolution can not stand the acid test of mathematics it will be repudiated by all.

We shall discuss the theory upon its merits, from a scientific standpoint, and will also demand an explanation of all facts concerned, as we have a right to do, even where they are associated with the theological and the spiritual as well as the material. We do not oppose true science but "science falsely so called." We do not ban research, but will not allow the wild vagaries of the imagination to pass as truth.

We shall not declare arbitrarily that evolution is untrue; neither will we allow scientists to decide what we shall believe. But we shall appeal to the facts, and evolution must stand or fall by the evidence. "Evolution is not to be accepted until proved." It is not yet proved and never will be.

MATHEMATICS THE ACID TEST.

Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or disproved by this acid test. Figures will not lie, and mathematics will not lie even at the demand of liars. Their testimony is as clear as the mind of God. Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous calculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory is proved true, and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematical calculations. The calculations, leading to the discovery of Neptune, went far to establish the Copernican theory as well as the law of gravitation, and to disprove the Ptolemaic theory. The evolution theory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved by mathematics. The proof is overwhelming and decisive. Thus God makes the noble science of mathematics bear testimony in favor of the true theories and against the false theories. We shall endeavor to marshal some of the mathematical proofs against the false and pernicious theory of evolution. True theories, such as the gravitation and Copernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch of mathematics harmonizes with every other. If evolution were true, it would harmonize with all other true theories, rather than with so many false theories.

THEORIES OF EVOLUTION

Evolution in one sense, means growth or development--literally, unrolling or unfolding. It is difficult to give a clear definition that will apply to each of the various theories that are held. Theories differ vastly in the extent of their application, as held by their various advocates, resulting in great confusion of terms:

1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not created, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man."

2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all plants and animals, including man, are developed from certain original simple germs, was Lamarck a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded that God created matter--nothing more. He believed in spontaneous generation, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.

3. Darwin goes a step further and concedes there may have been a Creator of matter, and of one, or at most, a few germs, from which all vegetation and all animals came by evolution--all orders, classes, families, genera, species, and varieties. He differs from Lamarck, by allowing the creation of one germ, possibly a few more. He says in his "Origin of Species," "I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lesser number . Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from one prototype...All the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, may be descended from some one primordial form." Darwin, because of his great scholarship, fairness, and candor, won for his theory more favor than it inherently deserves. Darwin taught that, "The lower impulses of vegetable life pass, by insensible gradations, into the instinct of animals and the higher intelligence of man," without purpose or design. None of these three hypotheses can admit the creation of man.

4. Other evolutionists, believing in the evolution of both plants and animals, nevertheless refuse to believe in the evolution of man--the most baneful application of the whole theory. Even if there were convincing proof of the evolution of plants and animals from one germ, there is no real proof of the evolution of man. To prove this is the chief purpose of this book.

5. A fifth theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that al1 species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation. Evolution is used throughout this book in this latter sense, unless otherwise indicated by the context. God does not create by evolution, for it can only develop what already exists.

This book is divided into three parts: In Part One, material evolution, especially the evolution of the human body, is disproved. In Part Two, the alleged proofs of evolution are examined and refuted. In Part Three, the evolution of the soul is shown to be impossible. There are in all fifty numbered arguments, including answers to the arguments of evolutionists.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PART ONE
THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY
MATHEMATICALLY DISPROVED
Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Whenever it is irreconcilable with any fact, it should be rejected, as it can not be a true theory. Every true theory passes through these three stages--possibility, probability, and certainty. A theory is not science, until it is certainly true, and so becomes knowledge. The evolution of man from the brute is in the throes of a desperate struggle to show that it may possibly be a true theory or hypothesis. Yet some who are ready to admit that they are "scientists," claim evolution a proven theory.

If it can be shown possible for man to have descended or ascended from the lower animals, it will require enormous additional evidence to show that such descent is probable; and still much more to make it certain.

Every scientific theory, proposed as possible, is reconcilable with some facts. Otherwise, it would not have been considered for a moment. Many false hypotheses have been proposed, and accepted as possible and even probable, because reconcilable with some facts. The Ptolemaic theory of the universe, making the earth the centre, around which the heavens revolved in great concentric spheres, was accepted for 1400 years from AD 140, because it explained many things. It corresponded with appearances. It appealed to all. Its advocates had great difficulty in reconciling it with the motions of the planets, which were therefore called planets or "wanderers." But in time the Copernican theory prevailed, because it was reconcilable with all the facts. The evidence is so abundant that all claim it the true theory. It is science. It is knowledge.

Because the Copernican hypothesis, the true theory of the universe, was opposed and rejected, it does not follow that the evolution of man is true because it is likewise opposed and rejected. If this new theory, hypothesis, or guess stands, it can only do so, because it harmonizes with all the facts. The law of gravitation, and every other proven theory harmonizes with all the facts and with all other true theories

It will be shown in this book, that a large number of facts can not be reconciled with evolution, especially the evolution of man thus proving that it can not be a true theory. We really have a right to demand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent until proved. While we are under no obligation to disprove an unproven theory, yet it is the shortest way to settle the matter once for all, before it has led multitudes more astray, and wrecked the faith and hopes of the young.

Prof. H. H. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution," p. 57, says, "Reluctant as we may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution." "If all the facts are in accord with it, and none are found that are incapable of being reconciled with it, a working hypothesis is said to have been advanced to a proven theory." Note this admission by a leading evolutionist.

Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came by evolution from the primordial germ, it would not follow that either the body or the soul of man came by evolution. All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. In addition, there are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals should ever be proved possible.

In this volume, the claim is made that the evolution of man is irreconcilable with a large number of facts. If investigation proves that we have erred in any statement of facts, or if our reasoning in any one argument or more is fallacious, we will not lose our case, as long as evolution remains irreconcilable with any: other single fact. If every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts. One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution. And there are many!

THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.

The unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that all races interbreed, the most certain test of every species.

All these facts pointing to the unity of the race in the days of Noah and of Adam are irreconcilable with the theory of evolution which denies that unity within the last two million years

We shall present these arguments more in detail. The arguments immediately following, especially the first eight, show the unity of the human race in the days of Noah, and thus present insuperable objections to evolution, and confirm the story of man's creation and his destruction by the flood. The following is the first of fifty arguments against the evolution of man.

1. THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD

The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of 1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000. The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number. This result may be approximately ascertained by the following computations:

At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the tenth, 1024; the twentieth 1,048,576, the thirtieth, 1,073,741,824; and the thirty-first, 2,147,483,648. In other words, if we raise two to the thirtieth power, we have 1,073,741,824; or to the thirty-first power, 2,147,483,648 Therefore, it is evident even to the school boy, that, to have the present population of the globe, the net population must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all allowances are made for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses of all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population of the globe.

Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time.

Moreover, it is singularly confirmed by the number of Jews, or descendants of Jacob. According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since the marriage of Jacob. By the same method of calculation as above, the Jews, who, according to the Jewish yearbook for 1922, number 15,393, 815, must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once every 161.251 years. The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! We would not expect the figure to be exactly the same nor be greatly surprised if one period were twice the other. But their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of the human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of God by the most proficient chronologists. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years, or 402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable.

While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet there are few things so stable and certain as general average, where large numbers and many years are considered, as in the present case. No life insurance company, acting on general average statistics, ever failed on that account. The Jews and the whole human race have lived together the same thirty-eight centuries with very little intermarriage, and are affected by similar advantages and disadvantages, making the comparison remarkably fair.

Also, the 25,000,000 descendants of Abraham must have doubled their numbers every 162.275 years, during the 3,988 years since the birth of his son Ishmael. These periods of doubling which tally so closely, 168.3 years for the whole race, 161.251 for the Jews, and 162.275 years for the descendants of Abraham, cannot be a mere coincidence, but are a demonstration against the great age of man required by evolution, and in favor of the 5,177 years since Noah. None of the other various chronologies would make any material difference in these calculations. The correspondence of these figures, 168.3, 161.251 and 162.275 is so remarkable that it must bring the conviction to every serious student that the flood destroyed mankind and Noah became the head of the race.


Now the evolutionists claim that the human race is 2,000,000 years old. There is no good reason for believing that, during all these years the developing dominant species would not increase as rapidly as the Jews, or the human race in historic times, especially since the restraints of civilization and marriage did not exist. But let us generously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one pair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years one-tenth as rapidly as the Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the 1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures following. The population of the world, therefore, would have been 18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion. decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.

Or, let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess. Q. E. D.

All these computations have been made upon the supposition that the human race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, as the evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormously increased.

Yet we are gravely told that evolution is "science". It is the wildest guess ever made to support an impossible theory.

That their guesses can not possibly be correct, is proven also by approaching the subject from another angle. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, and must double its numbers 30.75 times to make the present population, it is plain that each period for doubling would be 65,040 years, since 2,000,000 divided by 30.75 is equals 65,040. At that rate, there would be fewer than four Jews! If we suppose the race to have sprung from one pair 100,000 years ago, it would take 3252 years to double the population. At this rate, there would be five Jews!

Do we need any other demonstration that the evolution of man is an absurdity and an impossibility? If the evolutionists endeavor to show that man may have descended from the brute, the population of the world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROM THE BRUTE. If they ever succeed in showing that all Species of animals may have been derived from one primordial germ, it is impossible that man so came. He was created as the Bible declares, by the Almighty Power of God.

The testimony of all the experts in the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that evolution was in harmony with some facts and therefore possibly true. The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true. They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims. These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man. It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7333 years ago, according to Hale's chronology. If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe. This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.

Now, if there had been no flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000, or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population would have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832. These calculations are imperfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood. Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam. Is not this a demonstration, decisive and final?

2. THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES

The unity of the languages of the world proves the recent common origin of man. Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists, declared that all languages are derived from one. This is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammatical construction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc. The words for father and mother similar in form, for example, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, the Aryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups, showing a common original language and proving the early existence of the home and civilization. The similarity of these and many other words in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages, spoken in all continents is common knowledge. Lord Avebury names 85 Hamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and mother are similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, including Turkish, Tibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 in New Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken by American Indians. Answer: The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are daughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and the Aryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, the daughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediate descendants. There can not well be more than 4 generations of languages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the development of the 1000 1anguages and dialects. The American Indians have developed about 200 in 3,000 or 4,000 years. The life of a language roughly speaking, seems to range from 1000 to 3,000 years. The time since Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages of the world. But if man has existed for 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 years, with a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would have been multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or no resemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They were never spoken because no one lived to speak them.

Many linguists insist that the original language of mankind consisted of a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use only about 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters ; the stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanskrit, about the same. All the Semitic languages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages is to grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a few small words must have been close to the original mother tongue. No language could have come down from the great antiquity required by evolution and have so few words. Johnson's English Dictionary had 58000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000. The evidence points to the origin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves the great antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitiful absurdity.

3. RELIGIONS

The unity of ancient religions proves the creation of man who received a divine revelation. According to evolution, all religions were evolved or invented by humanoids. In that case, we would expect them to be widely divergent; and we would be surprised, if they agreed on great and important points, and especially on points which could not be clearly arrived at by reason. For instance, what in reason teaches us that an animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God? How could unassisted reason ever arrive at the conclusion that God is properly worshipped by sacrificing a sheep or an ox? If we grant that one section of the anthropoid host might have stumbled on the idea how can we account for its prevalence or its universality? A very high authority says, "Sacrifices were common to all nations of antiquity, and therefore, traced by some to a personal revelation." By revelation, we ]earn that the animal sacrifice prefigured the Lamb slain on Calvary. It was revealed. No race of monkey-men could ever have invented the idea.

The most ancient nations worshipped God by sacrifices. Homer's Iliad (1000 BC) and other works of Grecian poets are full of it. All the classics, Greek and Latin, are crowded with accounts of offerings. The earliest records of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hindus and Chinese speak of sacrifices long in vogue. This unity of religions on the point of animal sacrifices bespeaks revelation and not evolution.

The division of time into weeks of 7 days, prevalent among the ancients, suggests an ancient revelation in commemoration of creation as against evolution, which denies creation. The following statements from Dr. J. R. Dummelow, an eminent commentator, show that the Babylonians both divided time into weeks, and offered sacrifices pointing to the unity of religions. "The Babylonians observed the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th of each lunar month as days when men were subjected to certain restrictions; the king was not to eat food prepared by fire, nor offer sacrifice, nor consult an oracle, nor invoke curses on his enemies." They also observed the 19th of each month. It was customary, therefore, in the days of Abraham, for the Babylonians to offer sacrifices and to observe the 7th day as especially sacred. This can only be accounted for upon the assumption, that God had revealed to the human race that creation occupied 6 days or periods, and the 7th was to be observed--all of which was doubtless handed down by tradition. There were priests and temples in the most ancient empire known.

Dr. Dummelow says: "It is now widely admitted that the Genesis account of creation contains elements of belief which existed perhaps thousands of years before the book of Genesis was written, among the peoples of Babylonia and Assyria." Many of the primeval revelations were handed down by tradition. God communed with Adam. There are many relics of the original religion: the division of time into weeks, and the institution of the Sabbath day; the sacrifices so common in the ancient religions; the general existence of priests and temples in all ages, and among all nations; marriage, the divinely authorized pillar of society; the early institution of the family, and the use of the root words for father and mother, in all the most ancient languages, and families of languages, as well as in the scattered languages of the earth spoken by the most savage. The belief in the immortality of the soul, is well nigh universal, even among tribes, who, unlike Plato, possess no power to reason it from the light of nature. In contrast, we behold the sorry spectacle of the anthropoid evolutionists of our day trying to drive from the hearts of men the hope of immortality by their "science falsely so-called." The burial of the dead is, no doubt, a relic, since animals, even of the monkey tribe, do not bury their dead.

4. PLACE OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN

The unity of the human race is further proved by the fact that it originated in one locality and not in many. The locality is tire one described by Moses. And the fact that Moses correctly located the beginning of the race, when he himself had no personal knowledge, proves that he was inspired and taught of God. He never could have guessed the spot to which history and the migration of nations point, and which the evolutionists themselves are obliged to concede.

The habitable countries of the world total 50,670,837 sq. mi. We are making a generous estimate, when we suppose the garden of Eden to have been 100 mi. wide and 125 mi. long--12,500 sq. mi. There are 4005 such areas in the habitable globe. It is located in Mesopotamia on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Maps of ancient nations show that mankind radiated from this centre. The great nations of antiquity were clustered about it. The beginning of the race after the flood was in the same general locality.

Ridpath in his great history of the world, graphically shows the migrations of races and nations. With this even evolutionists agree. They draw a line "according to Giddings," running through western Asia, in the region of the garden of Eden. Since there are 4005 such areas in the habitable globe, Moses had only one chance out of 4005 to guess the spot, if he had not been inspired of God Anyone guessing, might have located the origin of man in any of the countries of Europe, Asia or Africa. This dearly demonstrates that God revealed the truth to Moses and that the story of creation is true and of evolution false.

If evolution were true, there must have been 6000 years ago, many heads to the race, in many places. It is incredible that there would be but one spot where brutes became human. Answer: There would be an innumerable host of anthropoid brutes, in many parts of the world, in all gradations. Who can believe that one species or one pair forged ahead so far as to become human?

5. CIVILIZATIONS

The early civilization of man points to his creation, not his evolution. Evolution requires many centers of civilization; creation, only one. Of course, if man is descended from an ancient ape like form, and from the Primates and their brute progeny, he must have been as uncivilized and brutish as any baboon or gorilla today, or the apes, which last year, horribly mangled the children at Sierra Leone. He must have worked his way up into civilization. The records, as far back as they go, prove that the original condition of man was a state of civilization, not savagery. Man fell down, not up.

The recent explorations in the tomb of Tutankhamun in Egypt, and the more recent explorations of the tomb of a skill more ancient Egyptian monarch, show that a high degree of civilization prevailed from 2000 to 1300 B. C The art displayed in the carvings and paintings, and the skill of the artisans are beyond praise. They had knowledge even of what are now lost arts. They had a written language 300 years before Homer wrote his immortal Iliad. Yet many higher critics claim that writing was unknown in the days of Moses and Homer. They declare that the Iliad, a poem in 24 books, was committed to memory, and handed down from generation to generation 400 years with all its fine poetic touches. Monstrous alternative! Indeed we are even told that "Many men must have served as authors and improvers." The mob of reciters improved the great epic of Homer! Scarcely less brilliant is the suggestion of another higher critic that, "Homer's Iliad was not composed by Homer, but by another man of the same name"

The laws of Hammurabi, who is identified as the Amraphel of Scripture, Gen. 14:1, and who was contemporary with Abraham, were in existence many hundred years before Moses, and showed a high state of civilization, which began many hundred years before Abraham. The literature of China goes back to 2000 B. C. The earliest civilization of China, Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, reaching to 2500 B. C., or earlier, points to a still earlier civilization, which likely reaches back to the origin of the human race.

It is admitted that the earliest (Sumerian) civilization began on the Euphrates, near the garden of Eden. They had temples and priests, and, therefore, religion prevailed as well as civilization. The first great empires clustered around the places where Adam and Noah lived. No other civilization recorded in any quarter reaches farther back.

We quote from the New International Encyclopedia: "The Sumerian language is probably the oldest known 1anguage in the world. From the Sumerian vocabulary, it is evident that the people who spoke this language had reached a comparatively high civilization."

The monuments show that in early historical times, man was in a state of civilization. There are no monuments of man's civilization prior to historica1 time.

Higher critics have said that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because writing was unknown in his day. Yet Prof. A. H. Sayce, DD, LLD, of Oxford University, one of the greatest archaeologists the world ever knew, writes: "Egypt was the first to deliver up its dead. Under an almost rainless sky, where frost is unknown and the sand seals up all that is entrusted to its keeping, nothing perishes except by the hand of man. The fragile papyrus, inscribed it may be 5,000 years ago, is as fresh and legible as when its first possessor died.

In Egypt, as far back as the monuments carry us, we find a highly-developed art, a highly organized government, and a highly-educated people. Books were multiplied, and if we can trust the translation of the Proverbs of Ptah-hotep, the oldest existing book in the world, there were competitive examinations, [civil service] already in the age of the sixth Egyptian Dynasty. We have long known that the use of writing for literary purposes is immensely old in both Egypt and Babylonia. Egypt was emphatically a land of scribes and readers. Already in the days of the Old Empire, the Egyptian hieroglyphs had developed into a cursive hand."

From the Tel el-Amarna tablets, discovered in Upper Egypt, we know that for 100 years people were corresponding with each other, in the language of Babylonia m cuneiform characters. Libraries existed then, and "Canaan in the Mosaic age, was fully as literary as was Europe in the time of the Renaissance. Ancient Babylonian monuments testify to the existence of an ancient literary culture. The results of the excavations by the American Expedition, published by Prof. Hilprecht, of the U. of Pennsylvania, show that in the time of King Sargon of Accad, art and literature flourished in Chaldea. The region of the garden of Eden was the pivot of the civilization of the world. From this region radiated the early civilization of Babylonia, Assyria and Egypt. And the advanced degree implies centuries of prior civilization. The origin of man and the earliest civilization occurred in the same region. Ur explorations (1927) show high art, 3000 BC.

The earliest records show man was civilized. He lived in houses, cities and towns, read and wrote, and engaged in commerce and industry. To be sure, he did not have the inventions of modern times. If all these were necessary, then there was no civilization prior to the 20th century. Prof. J. Arthur Thompson, of Aberdeen, an evolutionist, says: "Modern research is leading us away from the picture of primitive man as brutish, dull, lascivious and bellicose. There is more justification for regarding primitive man as clever, kindly, adventurous and inventive."

It is admitted that cannibalism was not primeval. The two great revolting crimes of barbarism, cannibalism and human sacrifices, only prevailed when man had fallen to the lowest depths, not when he had risen out of savagery to the heights. The assertion that man was originally a brute, savage and uncivilized is pure fiction, unsupported by the facts. The original civilization of mankind supports the Bible, and upsets evolution.

6. THE MENDELIAN INHERITANCE LAW

The unity of the human race is further established by Mendel's Inheritance Discovery on which evolutionists so much rely. G. Mendel, an experimenter, found that when he crossed a giant variety of peas with a dwarf variety, the offspring were all tall. The giants were called "dominant"; the disappearing dwarfs, "recessive". But among the second generation of this giant offspring, giants and dwarfs appeared in the proportion of 3 to 1. But when these dwarfs were self-fertilized, successive generations were all dwarfs. The recessive character was not lost, but appeared again. Experiments with flowers likewise show that the recessive color will reappear.

Also experiments with the interbreeding of animals have shown similar results. The recessive or disappearing characteristics, or the disappearing variety, will appear again, in some subsequent generation, and sometimes becomes permanent. This law prevails widely in nature, and the recessive traits appear with the dominant traits. "If rose-combed fowl were mated with single-combed fowl, the offspring were all rose-combed, but when these rose-combed fowl were mated, the offspring were again rose-combed and single-combed If gray rabbits were mated with black rabbits, their hybrids were all gray, the black seemingly disappearing, but when the second generation were mated, the progeny were again grays and blacks--God or Gorilla--p. 278. The recessive character always reappears.

Apply these widely prevalent laws to dominant man and his recessive alleged brute ancestor. The simian characteristics would appear in some generations, i£ not in many. We would expect many offspring to have the recessive character of the ape, and we ought not to be surprised, if some recessive stock became permanent.

Following analogy, we ought to look for a tribe of human beings that had degenerated into apes. That we find no such recessive characteristics even among the most degenerate savages, and no such ape-like tribe of human beings, is a decisive proof that man never descended from the brute. Else such recessive characteristics, according to the Mendelian Law, would be sure to appear. We would also find monkeys and apes--the recessive species--descended from man.

7. BIOMETRY

Even new sciences, founded by evolutionists, bear witness against their theory. Mendel's Inheritance Law is one, as we have seen Biometry is another. It was proposed and advocated by Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. He expected it to be a great prop to evolution; on the other hand, it is another proof of the unity of our race in Noah's day, and hence fatal to their theory. Biometry is defined to be the "statistical study of variation and heredity." It bears heavily against the great age of man.

One of the leading exponents of Biometry, Dr. C. B. Davenport, Secretary of the Eugenics section of the American Breeders' Association concludes that "No people of English descent are more distantly related than thirtieth cousin, while most people are more nearly related than that." Professor Conklin, of Princeton University, approves this conclusion, and adds, "As a matter of fact most persons of the same race are much more closely related than this, and certainly we need not go back to Adam nor even to Shem, Ham or Japheth to find our common ancestor." Dr. Davenport, therefore, says that the English may find a common ancestor thirty-two generations ago; Professor Conklin admits that we need not go further back than Noah to find a common ancestor of all mankind. Noah, therefore, must have been the head of the race. Evolutionists admit we need go no farther back than Noah to find the head of the race, and the population, as we have seen, proves the same thing, and disproves every guess they have made of the great age of man. We have descended from Noah and not from the brute.

This same Professor Conklin says that our race began 2,000,000 years ago (60,000 generations). How is it possible that we must go back sixty thousand generations for a common ancestor, when thirty-two generations will suffice for the English, and about 200 generations since Noah, for the whole race? If we, by the laws of biometry, can find a common ancestor in Noah, we can not possibly go back 2,000,000 years to find one. Professor Conklin's admission refutes his claim of 2,000,000 years for man. Biometry proves that age absolutely impossible.

If the progeny of this ape-like ancestor inter-bred for many generations--as certainly would have been the case--then we are not only descended from all the monkey family, the baboon, gorilla, ape, chimpanzee, orang-utang femur (H. G. Wells' ancestor), mongoose, etc., but are also related to all their progeny. Glorious ancestors! In our veins runs the blood of them all, as well as the blood of the most disgusting reptiles. And yet Professor H. H. Newman, an eminent evolutionist, in a letter to the writer, says, "The evolution idea is an ennobling one!" But biometry saves us from proving it could not be so.

Biometrists find that there is a Law of Filial Regression, or a tendency to the normal in every species, checking the accumulation of departures from the average, and forbidding the formation of new species by inheritance of peculiarities. The whole tendency of the laws of nature is against the formation of new species, so essential to evolution. The species brings forth still "after its kind." "On the average, extreme peculiarities of parents are less extreme in children." "The stature of adult offspring must, on the whole, be more mediocre than the stature of the parents." Gifted parents rarely have children as highly gifted as themselves.

The tendency is to revert to the normal in body and mind. Nature discourages the formation of new species, evolutionists to the contrary notwithstanding. "Like produces like" is a universal and unchangeable law. God has forbidden species to pass their boundaries; and, if any individual seems to threaten to do so, by possessing abnormal peculiarities, these are soon corrected, often in the next generation. Even Professor H. H. Newman says, "On the whole, the contributions of biometry to our understanding of the causes of evolution are rather disappointing." A science that upsets evolution is certainly disappointing to evolutionists.

8. NO NEW SPECIES NOW

They tell us that 3,000,000 species of plants and animals developed from one primordial germ, in 60,000,000 years. How many new species should have arisen in the last 6,000 years? Now 20 doublings of the first species of animals would make 1,048,576 species, since 2 raised to the 20th power becomes 1,048,576. Again we will favor the evolutionists by omitting from the calculation all species of animals in excess of 1,048,576. Therefore, on an average, each of the 20 doublings would take 1/20 of 60,000,000 years, or 3,000,000 years; and, therefore, 1/2 of the entire 1,048,576 species, or 524,288 species, must have originated within the last 3,000,000 years. Can that be the case? Certainly not.

And since the number of species must have increased in a geometrical ratio, 2097 species must have arisen or matured within the last 6000 years--an average of one new species of animals every 3 years. How many species actually have arisen within the last 6000 years? 2000? 200? or 2? It is not proven that a single new species has arisen in that time. Not one can be named. If approximately 2000 new species have not arisen in the last 6000 years, the evolution of species can not possibly be true. Even Darwin says: "In spite of all the efforts of trained observers, not one change of species into another is on record." Sir William Dawson, the great Canadian geologist, says: "No case is certainly known in human experience where any species of animal or plant has been so changed as to assume all the characteristics of a new species."

Indeed, a high authority says: "Though, since the human race began, all sorts of artificial agencies have been employed, and though there has been the closest scrutiny, yet not a distinctively new type of plant or animal, on what is called broad lines, has come into existence."

Not a single new species has arisen in the last 6000 years when the theory requires over 2000. Evolutionists admit this. Prof. Vernon Kellogg, of Leland Stanford University, in his "Darwinism of Today," p. 18, says: "Speaking by and large, we only tell the general truth when we declare that no indubitable cases of species forming, or transforming, that is, of descent, have been observed...For my part, it seems better to go back to the old and safe ignoramus standpoint."

Prof. H. H. Newman, of Chicago University, in answer to the writer's question, "How many new species have arisen in the last 6000 years?" wrote this evasive reply: "I do not know how to answer your questions...None of us know just what a species is. [If so, how could 3,000,000 species be counted, the number, he says, exists?]...It is difficult to say just when a new species has arisen from an old." He does not seem to know of a single new species within the last 6,000 years.

The same question was asked of Dr. Osborn, of Columbia University, N. Y. The answer by R. C. Murphy, assistant, was equally indefinite. He wrote: "From every point of view, your short note of Aug. 22nd raises questions, which no scientific man can possibly answer. We have very little knowledge as to just when any particular species of animal arose." In a later letter, he says: "I have no idea whether the number of species which have arisen during the last 6000 years is 1 or 100,000."

Should those who "do not know" speak so confidently in favor of evolution, or take the "old and safe ignoramus" standpoint, as Prof. Kellogg suggests?

The number of existing species can not be explained upon the ground of evolution, but only upon the ground of the creation of numerous heads of animal and plant life, as the Scriptures declare.

We have a right to increase the pressure of the argument, by introducing into the calculation, the total of 3,000,000 species of plants and animals which would require 6355 new species within the last 6000 years, or an average of more than one new species a year! And they can not point to one new species in 6000 years, as they confess.. Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, said recently: "If the theory of evolution be true, then, during many thousands of years, covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would certainly be known at least a few instances of the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known."

Prof. Owen declares, "No instance of change of one species into another has ever been recorded by man."

Prof. William Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, said, "It is impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin's theory of the origin of species. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact that, after forty years, no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis of species."

Although scientists have so largely discarded Darwin's theory, the utter lack of new species in historic time, when so many are required by every theory of evolution, is a mathematical demonstration that the whole theory of evolution must be abandoned. Q. E. D. Why do they still insist it may be true?

Mathematical Probability is a branch or division of mathematics by means of which the odds in favor or against the occurrence of any event may be definitely computed, and the measure of the probability or improbability exactly determined. Its conclusions approximate certainty and reveal how wild the guesses of evolutionists are.

The evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical probability. It is so improbable that one and only one species out of 3,000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the case. All had the same start, many had similar environments. Yet witness the motley products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk scorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm, and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize, mushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc. All developed from one germ, all in some way related. Mark well the difference in size between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and the difference in intellect between man and the lobster!

While all had the same start, only one species out of 3,000,000 reached the physical and intellectual and moral status of man. Why only one? Why do we not find beings equal or similar to man, developed from the cunning fox, the faithful dog, the innocent sheep, or the hog, one of the most social of all animals? Or still more from the many species of the talented monkey family? Out of 3,000,000 chances, is it not likely that more than one species would attain the status of man?

"Romanes, a disciple of Darwin, after collecting the manifestation of intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals, found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15 months old." Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much conscience. Why have not many species filled the great gap between man and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male? Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be males but one? To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found by evolutionists belong to males except one. Strange, if 3,000,000 pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall with heads up, save one? The Revolutionary war, out of 3,000,000 people, developed one great military chieftain, but many more approximating his ability; one or more great statesmen with all gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others little inferior; but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or l0,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other species. It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the measureless distance between the monkey and man. It violates mathematical probability.

We have a right to expect, in many species and in large numbers, all gradations of animals between the monkey and man in size, intellect, and spirituality. Where are the anthropoids and their descendants alleged to have lived during the 2,000,000 years of man's evolution? They can not be found living or dead. They never existed. Creation alone explains the great gap. What signs have we that other species will ever approximate, equal or surpass man in attainments?

cont
We find all gradations of species in size from the largest to the smallest. Why not the same gradation in intelligence, conscience and spirituality? The difference in brain capacity and intelligence between man and the ape is 5099 greater than the difference in size between the elephant and the housefly. There are many thousands of species to fill the gap in size. Why not many thousands to fill the greater gap in intelligence? Evidently no species became human by growth. Many species like the amoeba, and the microscopic disease germs, have not developed at all but are the same as ever. Many other species of the lower forms of life have remained unchanged during the ages. If the tendency is to develop into the higher forms of life, why do we have so many of those lower forms which have remained stationary? Growth, development, evolution, is not, by any means, a universal rule.

Evolution is not universally true in any sense of the term. Why are not fishes now changing into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and monkeys into man? If growth, development, evolution, were the rule, there would be no lower order of animals for all have had sufficient time to develop into the highest orders. Many have remained the same; some have deteriorated.

And now we have a new amendment to the theory of evolution: We are told that the huge Saurians (reptiles) overworked the development idea, and became too large and cumbersome, and hence are now extinct. Prof. Cope says: "Retrogression in nature is as well established as evolution." It seems that man also has, contrary to all former conceptions, reached the limit of his development, if he has not already gone too far.

Prof. R. S. Lull says, (Readings p. 95) "Man's physical evolution has virtually ceased, but in so far as any change is being effected, it is largely retrogressive. Such changes are: Reduction of hair and teeth, and of hand skill; and dulling of the senses of sight, smell and hearing upon which active creatures depend so largely for safety. That sort of charity which fosters the physically, mentally and morally feeble, and is thus contrary to the law of natural selection, must also, in the long run, have an adverse effect upon the race." Too bad that Christian charity takes care of the feeble, endangering evolution, and the doctrine that the weak have no rights that the strong are bound to respect! We are not surprised that Nietzsche, whose insane philosophy that might is right, helped to bring on the world war, died in an insane asylum

After all, evolution is not progress and development, but retrogression and deterioration as well.

But evolutionists, compelled by the requirements of their theory, have added another amendment, which will seem ridiculous to some: Environment has had an evolution as well as plants and animals! Having denied the existence of God, or his active control and interference, they must account for environment by evolution. Listen: "Henderson points out that environment, no less than organisms, has had an evolution. Water, for example, has a dozen unique properties that condition life. Carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to life. The properties of the ocean are so beautifully adjusted to life that we marvel at the exactness of its fitness. (Yet no design!). Finally, the chemical properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are equally unique and irreplaceable. The evolution of environment and the evolution of organisms have gone hand in hand." And all by blind chance! Is it not a thousand times better to believe that all things were created by an all-wise and all powerful God? How could a lifeless environment come by evolution? If we would listen to them, we would be told that the ocean, the atmosphere heat, light, electricity, all the elements, the starry heavens and all the universe, and religion itself, came by evolution, some grudgingly granting that God may have created matter in the beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe that one species and only one out of 3,000,000 by evolution should attain the status of mankind; and that one species and only one species of the primates should reach the heights of intelligence, reason, conscience and spirituality. Huxley says, "There is an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite, between the lowest man and the highest beast."

To declare that our species alone crossed this measureless gulf, while our nearest relatives have not even made a fair start, is an affront to the intelligence of the thoughtful student. It does fierce violence to the doctrine of mathematical probability. It could not have happened.

10. THE AGE OF THE EARTH

The estimates of the age of the world vary from 16,000,000 years to 100 times this number or 1,600,000,000 years. Even H. G. Wells admits these estimates "rest nearly always upon theoretical assumptions of the slenderest kind." This is undoubtedly true of the reckless estimates of evolutionists, whose theory requires such an enormous length of time that science can not concede it. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "The last decade has seen the demise (?) of the outworn (?) objection to evolution, based on the idea that there has not been time enough for the great changes that are believed by evolutionists to have occurred. Given 100,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years since life began we can then allow 1,000,000 years for each important change to arise and establish itself."

An objection is not "outworn" until answered, and to speak of the demise of a generally accepted theory is hardly scientific. We will not allow the evolutionist to dismiss so weighty an objection with a wave of the hand. Prof. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution," p. 68, gives 60,000,000 years as the probable time since life began. The writer, having based arguments upon that assumption, was surprised to receive a private letter from him claiming that life has existed for 500,000,000 years. Indeed Prof. Russell, of Princeton, says, in his "Rice Lectures," that the earth is probably 4,000,000,000 years old, possibly 8,000,000,000! We can do nothing but gasp, while the bewildering guesses come in, and we wait for the next estimate. We note their utter abandon, as they make a raid on God's eternity to support a theory that would dethrone Him.

But these extravagantly long periods required by the theory, science cannot grant, for the following reasons:

1. According to the nebular hypothesis, and Helmholtz's contraction theory, accounting for the regular supply of heat from the sun the sun itself is not likely more than 20,000,000 years old, and, of course, the earth is much younger. Both of these theories are quite generally accepted by scientists, and have much to support them. Prof. Young, of Princeton, in his Astronomy, p. 156, says, "The solar radiation can be accounted for on the hypothesis first proposed by Helmholtz, that the sun is shrinking slowly but continually. It is a matter of demonstration that an annual shrinkage of about 300 feet in the sun's diameter would liberate sufficient heat to keep up its radiation without any fall in its temperature"...The sun is not simply cooling, nor is its heat caused by combustion; for, "If the sun were a vast globe of solid anthracite, in less than 5,000 years, it would be burned to a cinder." We quote from Prof. Young's Astronomy: "We can only say that while no other theory yet proposed meets the conditions of the problem, this [contraction theory] appears to do so perfectly, and therefore has high probability in its favor." "No conclusion of Geometry," he continues, "is more certain than this--that the shrinkage of the sun to its present dimensions, from a diameter larger than that of the orbit of Neptune, the remotest of the planets, would generate about 18,000,000 times as much heat as the sun now radiates in a year. Hence, if the sun's heat has been and still is wholly due to the contraction of its mass, it can not have been radiating heat at the present rate, on the shrinkage hypothesis, for more than 18,000,000 years; and on that hypothesis, the solar system in anything like its present condition, can not be much more than as old as that." If so, evolution, on account of lack of time, can not possibly be true. If we add many millions of years to this number, or double it more than once, the time is not yet sufficient. For if the sun is 25,000,000, or even 50,000,000 years old, by the time the planets are thrown off, in turn, from Neptune to the earth, and then the earth cooled sufficiently for animal life, only a few million years would be left for evolution, a mere fraction of the time required. This is a mathematical demonstration that evolution can not be true. The same calculations, 18,000,000 to 20,000,000 years, have been made by Lord Kelvin, Prof. Todd and other astronomers

2. The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the great age of the earth, required by evolution.

The temperature increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50 feet, or 100 degrees per m1e. Therefore, at 2 miles., water would boil; at 18 miles, glass would melt (1850 degrees); at 28 miles, every known substance would melt (2700 degrees). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles thick--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 miles., as indicated by the San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the crust is 2191 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380 years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210 years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible. Real science would not bypass such an obstacle in proof of their theory


The feather being one of the earliest forms of life not evolving doesn't proof anything.

Sure it does. You assume that the fossil record shows that things evolved, how can you disreagard a completely non-speculative fossil records that show that things didn't evolve? The feather, has never adapted. The earliest known fossil of a feather (220,000,000 years ago if you want to use carbon dating[from Longisquama insignis]) shows that it is indistiquishable from a modern day feather. Scientists previously thought, (and falsely) that feathers (and birds with feathers) evolved with the dinosaur species. However, these fossils date back to the earliest dinosaurs, and the feather is perfectly designed for flight, and no different than a feather of a bird today. Since adaptation for survival is the fundamental prerequisite for evolution, scientists are baffled as to how the feather was perfectly formed with one of the first species of animals known to live on the earth. So old in fact, that it doesn't leave much time for the single celled organism to make such a leap, unless you believe in punctuated equillibrium


Finding all the missing links (if they weren't eroded), when the earth has gone through an infinite amount of change over time doesn't say anything, specially when we can't even find biological weapons, terrorist cells, etc in a single region with an immense occupational force and the best military.
And I am curious as to your sources on calling them all fraudulent. Hopefully it is a reliable source, not those similar to the government conspiracies that we caused 9/11.

It is readily available for those who want to see it.

Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than many apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations. The knee joint, which is the only indication of a link between ape and man, was actually found over a mile away and 200 feet lower, and among other human bones. Hardly a credible example.

Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Peking man: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.

Laetoli footprints: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.

Kenya skull: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the newly discovered fossil - which he says is nothing more than the skull of a chimpanzee - only pokes more holes in the argument for evolution.[43]


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

But forget fossile record, we should see constant example of transitional forms between human and ape, but there are none. We should see examples a few steps closer to ape, and a few steps more advanced than human. The fact that this is non existant alone should bring us to question this theory.

I have the distinct impression someone is exercizing their copy/paste skills here and arguing against something they may know little about themselves (they just want the opposite to be true and find the sites which cater to these beliefs.)

Reading adults discussing issues of science by referring to God and the Bible just makes me shake my head in astonishment.

The emotional, intellectual, and moral immaturity of people who believe in the absurd fairy tales of the Bible is staggering.

And God. The creator of the universe who gets mad if human beings don't praise him. If a boss at work acted like that you'd hate his guts (and with good reason).

Oh, and this jerky creator has decided to play hide and go seek for the past few thousand years. Why? Oh, so he could test our "faith." Because believing in something with NO proof at all is somehow a positive trait. Whatever.

Oh, and spare me the "there's no proof of evolution" bullshit. At least you can debate the scientific assertions without relying on deus ex machina to explain everything.

There is no God, people. Grow up.

pwcca - I have researched and read on the subject arduently for almost 20 years now. Read my eintire post, would you like to rephrase all that info in a detailed post? Again and again? Last time I checked, using the info from scientists was a good idea. If you would like to debate the subject, I'm all ears, but questioning my study on the matter, well, it can't be all that intellectually stimulating for either of us. It's also quite presumptuous on your part. Care to respond to anything I posted?

Anon - If you would like to debate the subject, something remotely intelligent would be appropriate. You could respond to any of several points I raised above since you appear to be so passionate about it. I presented several large issues on the concept of evolution, I guess you didn't care to read them, although "creation is stupid" (a paraphrase to please Pwcca lol) is a snappy response <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Also ranting about people who debate evolution and creation, when you are on an Evolution or creation forum, now that is truly astonishing. Let's hope your genius is not contagious <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

And once again, I tried to keep God out of it and just discuss facts. Much of the post (except the math part as I didn't want to edit it) says nothing about God. Any reference to god was in the post that I cut and pasted. But everyone keeps bringing him back <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

After a while these things get to be little more than one "expert" opinion over the other. Very few of us have actually been out in the field and know first hand what's true and what's not - it's very easy therefore to accuse something of being a hoax when we feel our belief systems need reinforcement. The Jewish holocaust never happened, the earth is actually flat, and so on (see, I have the proof!)

And this isn't a statement to any one person in particular, rather, a general observation.

I'm afraid I haven't the time to wade through your rather prolix diatribe, Claythrow. Sorry. Can I suggest that you target one issue at a time rather than trying to tackle the entire debate of Creationism vs. Evolution all in one post? It's just too cumbersome for any casual poster to take in, digest and then respond to.



You needn't paraphrase just to please me. One should avoid inflammatory and derogatory language in their posts to solidify their own credibility as a poster. It's not just for the sake of being nice, it's also to separate ourselves from the juvenile. Not flaming in a post is actually for your own courtesy, not (just) the courtesy of others.

But I met him in Yeshua!

Funny, I have never met you... tell ya what...I suddenly had this premonition that you don't exist... at some point in the not really too far off future, so your opinion seems rather meaningless to me too. I doubt your words broke his heart though someday they will surely break yours.... they surely don't raise a minute capillary in mine.

God is. Forever. Jehovah Elohim.

Thanks for teaching us manners, Pwcca. As long as everything suits you just right we can all live happily ever after.

I didn't find your post offensive Claythrow. Nor lacking in etiquette.

Touchy feely wiccy. The earth is a cold hard momma and gaia will not be not handing out blankets of wool to warm your bones or ashes. You surely will need good manners then. No offense, just think of me like a shadow at noon.

Eh? I'm just asking people not to throw obsenities around.


If this is meant to be some sort of suggestion that I am a Wiccan, I don't know where you got this idea from. I'm not one.


Why are you being so sarcastic with me? I haven't done anything.

I agree with Pwwca, lets all be civil to one an other

No one threw any obscentities around. Where? Someone disagreed with you and you were offended.

You are not a wiccy? Oh, my mistake. I could have sworn you decribed yourself as one in another thread.

I am not being sarcastic. The dirt stinks and it's cold and damp. Just making a point. Maybe it's not always about you, Pwwc.

You don't mind if I call you Pwcc do you?

I doubt your words broke his heart though someday they will surely break yours

Oh, when? The creator of the universe will be so angry at me for not believing in him that he'll punish me for all eternity in hell?

Are you 5 years old, mentally? Are you still pining for Daddy to love you?

What an utter load of horseshit. Thinking that an omnipotent being would be consumed with wanting me to believe in him is just the most ridiculous thing. I have ZERO respect for such beliefs.

No, what I said in another thread is that I am not a Wiccan. I was raised as a reconstructionist.

What is a reconstructionist? Maybe you should take a few moments to explain.

No, God will not punish you. More apt to say, God most likely will not help you with that attitude. He will simply allow you to continue along as you are until you drop fully dead and silent and far from his ears forever. I do realize how harsh that sounds, and I do not mean to be harsh, truly. But that is the way it is, I would not want to decieve you with either stories of heaven or hellfire

Lest of course you reach out your hand with your last breath and say, abba, father. It's been known to happen, those last minute concessions. Where it gets you I really don't know though but of course the possibilty always exists.

Pwcca - I was responding to the many issues raised by the previous poster. Would you like to request that he raise only one issue at a time lol. Your attention span and interest in the matter isn't really my concern. If you would like it broken down, at the end of the second post is much of my own material about some of the "evidence" at hand. I believe it is the math part you are finding cumbersome, though it is quite interesting.

There are many things you can reason on that don't involve scientific opinion. I could get into them with you, but I'm getting the vibe that you are really here just to muddy up the waters. You haven't dealt with anything on the subject, instead you just take disguised shots at the posters? I again invite you to join the discussion at hand. You were raised in a very different manner than the rest of us here, why don't you take the opportunity to explain your views and reasonings on the matter...

Lest of course you reach out your hand with your last breath and say, abba, father. It's been known to happen, those last minute concessions. Where it gets you I really don't know though but of course the possibilty always exists.

Damn. This abba is more insecure than an adolescent. He is that pathetically in need of our belief? All he wants is us to kiss his [censored] right before we die, and THEN he'll be nice to us?

He sounds like a petulant 12 year old. What a loser this creator must be.

It's kind of weird that people who don't want God in their lives come to conclusions like - 'He is that pathetically in need of our belief? All he wants is us to kiss his [censored] right before we die, and THEN he'll be nice to us?'

Honestly. Get over it, and I mean that nicely so that you don't get all excited and agitated. Truly, get over it. NO he does not need YOUR belief. He may not have even known you existed till now. The bible says quite clearly that God knows these people, he does not know others etc.

If your life is just peachy without him then he is fine with that decision. He's there if you need him. Some of us do, some of us don't, it couldn't be more obvious.

If God hated non-believers surely he could strike them dead this minute. But I see you are still here so we need to come to a different conclusion concerning that. He's good enough and big enough to care about you even after all the dumb stuff you say. but if you don't need him, no problem. Continually beating his door down with your negative retorts isn't exactly the way to not get his negative attention though, not a position I would want to be in personally. But again, it's your life.

Continually beating his door down with your negative retorts isn't exactly the way to not get his negative attention though, not a position I would want to be in personally. But again, it's your life.

So, then, God is like a pretty good guy, who is cool up to a point with being mocked. But don't cross the line or he'll get pissed, right?

I feel so sorry for people like you who consider this an actual spiritual belief. This is childish fantasy you're indulging in. It may make you feel good, but it's just cheap, empty calories.

It's time to let go of this silliness and become a grownup with a real spiritual life. one that doesn't require constant reference to an absurd book called the bible that isn't interesting on any dimension. A spiritual life that gets beyond seeing a creator of the universe as a really nice Dad that you'd like to have.

You have an exceptionally pathetic and depressing belief system.

ummm, no not exactly, it doesn't quite work like that either, God getting pissed etc.

What the bible says about it, and what I have experienced in my own life, is that he for the most part turns his back on us so as not to see our 'sin', not hear our cursing etc... really he doesn't want to know about it.

The problem is though, is that at that point you are not dealing with God but rather his counterpoint, so to speak, aka the devil be he by many names... the devil pretty much jumps in where he can, seeks and destroys I am sure you know the story by now. And without God, you are pretty much helpless. Of course you can choose at that point to run with the devil, ally yourself with him, wittingly or unwittingly, doesn't really matter. The outcome is generally the same, destruction... but not by God's hand. You may live well for a while serving the world or the devil, but destruction is imminent. Hopefully you don't hurt too many others too severely along the way....

A lot of spiritual forces in this world, God is only one of them, albeit so powerful he usually bows out rather than destroy everything as he did once before (eg; the flood). And btw, when I say God, I mean Jehovah, like in the bible, someone else may say god and mean something entirely different.

I think a lot of people get a very bad impression of 'God' because of things like 'allah akbar' , machetes heads being cut off, things of that nature... the bloody inquisitions of the catholic church, also a religion with many pagan beliefs steeped in egyptian lore... but allah is not the same as Jehovah, different god regardless of what muslims tell you about it. Their allah has no partners, no angels, nothing, their allah has no son, no Jesus, it is a different god with a different set of rules entirely. Far as I know there is not even a word for love in the arabic language. The only thing muslims/arabs have in common with Judeao/Christian beliefs is common lineage back to Abraham so some of the names are the same in that regard. The arabs were very much moon worshippers prior to Mohammad's appearance. many of their customs remain the same (notice even their crescent moon logo) and they still pilgramage to a rock at a certain site of the previous religion also. essentially Mohammad wrote their book, their bible, their quaran which helped unite all the little pagan moon cults and their many deities under 'one' god, but it still is a different god.

<i>Continually beating his door down with your negative retorts isn't exactly the way to not get his negative attention though, not a position I would want to be in personally. But again, it's your life. </i>

So, then, God is like a pretty good guy, who is cool up to a point with being mocked. But don't cross the line or he'll get pissed, right?

I feel so sorry for people like you who consider this an actual spiritual belief. This is childish fantasy you're indulging in. It may make you feel good, but it's just cheap, empty calories.

It's time to let go of this silliness and become a grownup with a real spiritual life. one that doesn't require constant reference to an absurd book called the bible that isn't interesting on any dimension. A spiritual life that gets beyond seeing a creator of the universe as a really nice Dad that you'd like to have.

You have an exceptionally pathetic and depressing belief system.

You might find it odd, but I actually had never really read the bible prior to getting saved. I had read a children's bible at the age of seven or so but that was about it. A big picture storybook pretty much. I truly did not recognize him when he appeared in my life and started working miracles and changes around me. He scared the living daylights out of me more than anything else. I could not deny his presence, I wish I couild describe it to you. Imagine a room charged with electricity that feels like the wavelength of life. Imagine really big hands lifting you up. Imagine being healed by an invisble touch. Imagine being protected by an invisible force in very dangerous circumstances. Yet it was impossible for me to trust him because, though he may have known me, I did not know him. And the devil really took advantage of that, I was very easy prey. Trusting him, knowing him, it took me years.

The bible helped me sort fact from fiction, to have peace and know that he is God. That may sound odd to you again, but God is not a reality to you like he is to me. What is really interesting and brought me to tears literally for a really long time, was that during that time when i was so confused and going through so much, he was there, and everything he did, every way he asked me to go, it's right there in the bible already. I guess that's why a lot of Christians call it their roadmap, their letter from God. I am inclined to agree.

He is just as powerful and wonderful as the bible makes him appear btw, and I think I only got an inkling of it.

Look, if this delusion makes you happy, then go with it. But I'm sorry - it's a pure delusion. The bible is an insipid book of fairy tales. If you lived in Saudi Arabia, you'd be saying the same glowing things about the Koran and Allah. If you had lived in ancient Greece, you'd have been praying to some God or other. In a Brazilian rainforest, to whatever deities they believe in.

I prefer to be a free person, able to deal with the pains and joys of life as a thinking human being, not encumbered by pure superstition.

And I love how you selectively choose to believe about God's help. Your suffering and sickness... naw, that ain't God, is it? Or... or is this all-powerful being "testing your faith" by causing your suffering, the way he "did" to Job?

if so, he's a cosmic c0cksucker sadistic scumbag. If I saw him, I'd spit in his face for all the pain he's caused. But he doesn't exist, just an indifferent universe dealing out it's random curses and blessings on human beings and animals and plants and everything that's walked or crawled or swam beneath these skies.

I wouldn't trust someone so patently sociopathic, jealous, pathetic, lame, needy, and cruel.

I am no longer suffering, all gone. even the swollen glands I had for several months from lousy dental work, gone gone gone. Ate a bunch of echinacea that yeshua told me to plant a few years ago, seems to have solved the problem finally. Swear I felt my lymph glands actually release the crap enmasse. blessed echinacea.

Learned a lot about dr's in the process. Have not had much experience with them in the past but now I know for sure. Funny I am about 20 years older than a lot of the kids here and I seem to be doing much better than quite a few. Could probably beat em in a race around the block in a heartbeat too. I surely do knock em over on the slopes. So funny, they just fall over when you go by them fast. But they talk so bravely.

Well, enjoy your life and I will enjoy mine. That natural feeling of immortality ends at about the age of 27-35 depending on youir physical condition. Free? You do not know freedom, you are simply accustomed to your chains.

Not a delusion btw. You wish. difference between you and me... there was a day i wasn't sure I believed, matter of fact it was many years... well I believed sort of, but it wasn't important is probably a btter way to put it... thing is, I got saved in my early 30's and all those 30 some very lost years, not once did I ever curse at God, call him names or even use his name in vain.

And look, you actually put it in writing. Hope you are satisfied though you've achieved less than you can ever imagine. It'll hit ya someday, mark my words. Try to remember the finer points then.

Nor should it be your concern. You should, instead, be concerned about the audience at large, as they are the ones you are posting to – and not any one individual. Ergo, my suggestions that you shorten your arguments. You don’t have to talk about one point only at a time, just don’t talk about 100


Without intending to come across as rude, it's actually the whole entire post which I find cumbersome. What I'm talking about here is size. I post regularly on three difference discussion boards and in my experience as somewhat of a prolific poster, it's always the monstrously-sized posts which often get completely bypassed by others. I haven’t read your post but I have a sneaky suspicion that you could’ve said the same thing in less than half the length used.


I really don't think so. I grew up a television-fed child like most of you, where our staple diet was powered down with caffeine, carbonation and high fructose corn syrup. What religion I was raised under isn't really enough to say that my entire upbringing was somehow vastly different from everyone else’s.

And look, you actually put it in writing. Hope you are satisfied though you've achieved less than you can ever imagine. It'll hit ya someday, mark my words. Try to remember the finer points then.

Nope, it won't hit me. My grandmother was dying of cancer at 92 years old and never once mentioned "God" or "heaven" or "hell." She never fell for that bullshit and it made me respect her even more. But I suppose this cruel creator is either actively tormenting my grandmother, or simply ignoring her, because she didn't believe in him. Again with the cosmic silent treatment.

I find it really silly that the creator of the universe chose to allow you to get sick. Then he whispered in your ear to grow a herb, which you did. Then you got well. This creator sure plays a lot of games. Not very mature or dignified. But I suppose he has a "plan" that I could never understand. This plan involves all sorts of riddles and inconsistencies, like allowing free will when it comes to getting sick then intervening in indirect ways to help.

And why does this creator have such weird plans for us? It doesn't make any sense in any spiritual or moral way. But again, it's all his "plan" which we could never hope to understand.

You'll feel a lot better if you embrace reality. You'll get your soul back, a soul which is now totally tied down by superstition and inconsistent, scattered, immature beliefs. Let go of all that silliness. See the world and the universe for what they are - you'll be amazed at how much more beauty and fascination things have when you let go of childish notions like a personal deity.

Pwcca - I was referring to your religious upbringing and your thoughts on the creation/evolution discussion that was really at hand. Which is an easily perceived inquisition, you are just being difficult now.

I will take the large post advice under consideration, as I agree with your point there. My point was that the response was a direct answer to all the points raised by Kriminal.

To get this back on track. The main problem that I have with the subject is that supposedly Evolution is "based on science." Yet science is just the current level of discovery. If it can be tested and experiments can be devised, performed and reproduced by others, then we take that as the current best knowledge available.
When other ideas surpass and give a better match to the universe, we simple drop the old and adopt the new. These in turn are discarded as better ideas more closely match the universe. (I borrowed the previous as it was expressed well) We have seen this in Evolution. The theories of ten years ago are considered silly. Most modern day evolutionists don't even believe we descended from Apes any more. It is constantly changing to fit the facts. So if the idea is constantly changing, why do we teach it as fact?

Many of the steps required to support the theory have been disproven, or never been reproduced. (spontaneous generation, macroevolution, Avida etc). The theory is largely based on the introduction of mutations, which when one examines the evidence, mutations are rarely beneficial, and have never introduced new genetic information (and if TRUE science prevailed never will ((as it has never happened in the past and there is no reason/evidence to assume that it would)) which would be necessary to form a new species. Mutations are composed of the dropping of contained information, or the duplicating of already contained information (ie down syndrome) Scientists have been able to induce the loss of legs by inorganic introduction of a leg growth suppressing gene. This was done in an effort to prove that houseflies developed from crustaceons. However, that gene was already inherent in the animal. You can induce suppression of an already available gene, however, you can't generate new gene information. You can take away what's there, but you can't change it to something new, its just never been done or proven. You can't present the information as fact, when much of the evidence disproves it, or no more proves evolution than I.D.

There is also confusion as the creationist model. They do not believe that adaptations within species cannot happen. They do not believe that the modern day dog or wolf did not have an earlier canine ancestor. This would be reproduction in kind. They do believe that the frog and the bird did not come from the same ancestor, they are two completely different animals. Microevolution some would say has been proven (though mutations and changes are induced) but even in this model that is able to be tested and experimented with, bacteria reproduce in kind (ie E-coli becomes a variation of E-coli) This is now inducted as proof of evolution, when in fact, it really has only proven that if you introduce changes to the living material, it will only produce a variation of that same type of living material.

To use what was said in another thread…

Ancient Mayans were documented in history books as being a passive, peaceful nation of people. Children in school were tested on this knowledge. They took quizzes, they recited before their classmates, they memorized. Then, years later, it was discovered that not only were the Mayans expressly not passive, they were sadistically ritualistic and extremely violent. So much for those children who committed the exact opposite to memory! Maybe the ones who failed their tests on the Mayans back then actually should have gotten an A. This is one example of many.

Yet…why do I get the impression that these kinds of fallacies in the history books don’t bother the kinds of people who argue about taking evolution out of science books?

There are a lot of things in school books which are downright false but taught as fact. Don’t interpret it as fact or some vast conspiracy to change the minds of children everywhere. It’s simply a model of the current level of knowledge. Evolution, though potentially false, is currently the most superior model to explain our origins. Evolution has more documentation than so called “Intelligent Design”, diplomas are awarded for evolution, libraries are chock full of literature on the subject – the same cannot be said for creation. Creation is based on theologically-fueled philosophy and disproving things rather than proving them.


Right and since it is the current level of discovery (and, of your own volition, the ONLY level of discovery) we work with what’s available – not what what’s not available.

You missed half the info in my post.

They teach it as fact. However, the current (and always from my study of it) information does not show that it evolution from single celled organisms is where we came from. Some people choose to interpret it that way, but as I pointed out, there are many flaws in the theory. The "current level of discovery" does not point to evolution IMO. In fact, I believe it points the other way.

All I'll say is if you want evolution out of the education system then you should also want creation (and any form of religion) out of the education system as well. Otherwise you're simply practicing bigotry.

This is not quite the same. You can have religious studies classes and they are labelled what they are. Problem with evolution is, it's being taught as science, which is where it gets misleading.

They are teaching a big bang theory and primordial soup when they have zero facts to go by other than their ideas. This does not belong in a science room where true science can be observed, tested, studied.

By all means have evolution in the religious studies class, nobody is against someone wishing to believe in that, but is it fair for people to pay tax dollars for people to teach kids their religion as science? Surely they can just teach science as is and leave the assumptions up to us? I know a guy that teaches science and does not really mention evolution. Just teaches science as science, no agenda at all. He does not mention creationism either. He allows the kids to think for themselves from the facts given.

Evolution so far relies on assumptions. micro evolution is fine, it's just variation within a kind. But it does not prove we came from apes or rocks or primordial soup or a big bang. We simply cannot prove this or observe it.

This is what I dont understand, what is so wrong with getting the lies out of the textbooks? Isn't this fair for kids to have honest teaching instead of hidden agendas disguised as science?

Its not bigotry to want true science.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with equality creationism/evolution. It has to do with presentation of something as fact, when in fact, it isn't proven and can't be proven. Present the facts, present the options, leave the interpretation to the students. The evidence provided no more disproves Intelligent Design than it proves Evolution. This isn't the unsolvable problem you present it to be...instead of teaching "this is what happened", teach that "these are the facts we have, these are the theories about what they point to", you decide which makes more sense. No need to mention God which is the intelligent design mantra, it doesn't violate any school policies. And if not presenting a scientific option is not allowed because it violates a school policy than we have not really progressed much beyond the 1500's (I would say we haven't anyway)

I haven't seen a class of biology teaching evolution coupled with the big bang and abiogenesis. And in astronomy or whatever classes when they are presented, they are presented as theories, not scientific fact.
I don't know what you guys are talking about, but evolution is fact for the scientific community
I am curious to where you guys get the info that most of evolution has been disproved (credible links?)
Anyways the beauty of evolution is it raises consciousness not just in biology but in other fields, skepticism about just attributing the things we don't understand to a designer just because we think it is too improbable.

Creationists who attempt to deploy the argument from improbability in their favour always assume that biological adaptation is a question of the jackpot or nothing.The eye sees or it doesn't. The wing flies or it doesn't. There are assumed to be no useful intermediates. A cataract patient with the lens of her eye surgically removed can't see clear images without glasses, but can see enough not to bump into a tree or fall over a cliff. Half a wing is indeed not as good as a whole wing, but it is better than no wing at all. The forests are replete with gliding or parachuting animals
A good example is a mountain. One side of the mountain is a vertical cliff, impossible to climb, but on the other side is a gentle slope to the summit. Evolution, goes around the back of the mountain and creeps up the gentle slope to the summit. Most people just see the immense complexity of life, and just think it is impossible, even through millions and millions of years

And even though there is no conclusive science for a designer, it is not a 50/50 question where it could go to either side. If I say there is a microscopic magical unicorn in orbit with the earth that not even the best telescopes can see. No one would be able to prove or disprove my claim for either side, but it is not a 50/50 probability of being true just because there are two choices.
Same could be said for Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence, I just go one god further.

Anyways my beef is not with you guys, since you guys at least have looked into both sides. But you probably are less than 1% of religious people, a huge minority. In reason vs superstition, reason should always triumph, and most people just blindly follow their religion because they were raised in it (and from this is where the ignorance spreads and causes conflicts/wars)

So, are any of you upset at the misrepresentation that took place regarding the ancient Mayans? There are children who had to go home studying and memorizing for tests on these cultures and decades later we find out it was all false. The very same could be true about lots of dated information. It would've been better if the history books had said "All current evidence suggests these people were passive but we're not entirely sure." But they didn't! They flat out said "this was a fact. Learn this. Memorize this. Get an 'A' on your test about the ancient Mayans."

So, just out of polite curiosity, does this sort of fallicy in the history books bother you? Or not really?

Why am I saying this? Am I saying this to be rude and nasty and just plain argumentative? Not at all. But to say you simply want the allaged falsehoods taken out of the text books suggests you're concerned with misinformation and that the recording of accurate data is your agenda, rather than religious motivation.

I know this is a Creation & Evolution forum, but just for the record, are you interested in other (non-religious) false facts in history and science books? There's an awful lot, you'd be surprised.

Kriminal,

For the purpose of this post let's understand that by evolution we are talking about all life generating from single celled organisms, not adaptation within species.

I posted TONS of evidence above that points against evolution. I rebutted all of the points you brought up and raised some. Let's stop with all the silly illustrations etc. There is much evidence that points to ID (see above) You act as though this is a quack claim pulled out of the air, when in fact it is a very reasonable and logical conclusion (design indicates a designer) with evidence to back it up (again see above, I'm not going to type it all again) Presenting evolution as fact is a failure to recognize all the evidence. Ruling out a reasonable possibility because you don't agree with the concept, or because it doesn't fit within the "rules" of what can be scientific is rather arcaic.

"As the ‘rules’ of science are now being refined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion, even if true."

That was a quote from a scientific journal...lol. I'm leaving science and sticking to math.

In relation to transitional forms, I would state that if transitional forms existed, there would be a myriad of examples found according to evolutionary myth. Because supposed small changes occurred between time spams of millions of years, we would find countless xforms with very small differences.

We don't, and this presents a big problem for evolutionists.

For this reason, they (meaning those who are "bought" who continue to support and promote evolution in exchange for grant money, etc.) came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium. Of course, this is the idea that a duck came out of an alligator egg and was invented to explain the lack of transitional forms.

Well, this is such a silly idea that evolutionists still wish it would go away. People didn't buy it because although people can be quite gullible at times, they are not that dumb.

More to come...

The lack of transitional forms is also what has led to the current theory that we in fact did not come from apes, but rather, we and apes descended from the same original ancestor eons ago and evolved at different rates and via different routes. This eliminates the need for transitional forms and most modern day Evolutionists laugh at the idea that apes are our evolutionary parent. Rather, they are a distant cousin. Evolutionists are recognizing that the lack of transitional forms (and absurdity of punctuated eq)does not support their theory. If you want to argue the presence of transitional forms you can now do it amongst fellow evolutionists.

Fact- Man evolved from apes (10 years ago)

Wait a minute, new Fact - We didn't evolve from apes.

We need to clarify "conclusion" and "fact".

Bwahahahaha. Yes, that notorious "evolution-industrial-complex". Greedy evolutionary biologists cackling with glee as the grant money rolls in. They call each other on the phone laughing about the giant charade they're pulling over the Godly masses, as they light their cigars with rolled up $100 bills.

Ah, living the high life AND doing Satan's bidding. What could be better!

You added the level of abusrdity to that comment, (I've seen 4 year olds that counter better). All scientists play that game. Why do you think there are so many evolution researching scientists? There is no funding to search for a creator, church already has the market cornered, and their are too many sensitive areas and politics that they don't want to deal with. Evolution is popular right now (a fad), its a feild drawing money.
Are you saying that $$ and a job does not influence them? (it's what you are alluding too, though I doubt you have any real basis for saying what you do)


Anon = 8

Sigh. OK, Claythrow. You win. A magical being in the sky created everything. He made it obvious to anyone who looks. Yet, darn it all, he STILL refuses to show his face to us. Basically, he's playing a big game, right? Show us some things and hide others. Of course, he doesn't need to be logical, he's got a plan we could never understand... though some can understand his creationist plan, but that isn't really understanding.

Look, you just go on with your "God did it all" philosophy. Why does the creator so desperately need to be acknowledged? Just go on safe in your belief, and let the 'deluded' scientists, who are actually seeking understanding, continue their pursuits?

I won't argue any more in depth with someone who actually believes in the Bible or in a personal God. It's patently embarrassing.

PWCCA, this forum is evolution/creation, it is not about every area of history and all the discrepancies, which would cause us all to go through everything with a fine tooth comb, without really knowing who has gotten it right. This is different, we are talking here about a belief being taught as science. This area is one of the most vital because it comes down to our origins. Evolution should be very easily proven with plenty of transitional forms as Russ and Claymore have pointed out.

This is science we are talking about here, this is not written/oral history or taking someone's word for it that was there and arguing which one got the facts straight and lining them all up and coming to a conclusion.

We are talking here about science teachers putting across an idea of what they think happened in the beginning with absolutely ZERO oral / written history or facts, just assumptions....it would be one thing if the basics were correct and the details could be argued with....But we cannot even prove that any of it ever happened in the first place.

Has anybody seen evolution in progress? It has been told that it happened so slowly over billions of years that we are just not able to observe these slow subtle changes. yet when there were problems with that idea due to how survival would continue if certain areas were still unevolved and could not exist properly unless they were in place at once, I have heard it said that it happened too quickly. Whatever the idea, it is ideal for the evolutionist. If you have a theory that you want to be put across as fact, even if that theory cannot be tested, observed, or studied, just tell everybody it occurs too slowly or quickly. But then if they want us to believe it happened at all? Tell us it happened over many billions of years. This way it goes beyond recorded history into "never never land". The space and time where all sorts of incredible fiction (put across as science) to explain our origins, universe, planetry alignment, day and night, time itself, DNA, human emotions, intelligence and so forth can suddenly be explained by the men in white coats who were not even there. Amazing really, we have the moon to light us by night and the sun to light us by day, yet all this just arrived by ...chance? Seasons, fruits, vegetables, animals, plants, all just evolved by chance random events. You take away one aspect of what we require for life and death is the eventual result. So they want us to believe that life originated from non life, or something without animation/intellect that not only could start life off, but could sustain it.

The evolutionist MUST rely on billions of years to put across this theory. That way if you put enough time on something, you can come up with anything. An unbelieveable idea can then suddenly seem possible. The improbable, becomes possible given enough time.

If in fact the earth is as old as they tell us, why are we not inundated/overwhelmed with fossil evidence of transitional forms? Why are they still searching and in the meantime telling us its fact? Why have there been so many hoaxes of missing links if they are so cock sure of their theory?

Why is a theory being taught or put across as science in a classroom? Science is something you can test, study, observe. Does someone have the right to stand in front of a classroom and use lies/uncertainties to support his theory and put it across as fact? One example of this was a young guy on here who (and I cannot believe this) STILL quoted the long since disproven fake of the embryo evolution. This guy started talking about gill slits in the embryo. It has been known for decades that embryos never have "gill slits". These pharyngeal clefts, as they are called, or "throat pouches" never have any breathing function and are never 'slits" or openings. They develop into the thymus gland, parathyroid glands and middle ear canals - none of which has anything to do with breathing under water or even above the water. And as for the guy's idea of a tail? This is the coccyx, important muscle attachments. All these things are part of a developing human being. But you see the evolutionist agenda here and attempting to have us believe that it's going through a fish stage?? So either we get the apes or fish. They must fit anything to support their theory, even if it means lying. Plenty of lies, we all know about the long line of ape to man hoaxes. Talk about desperate, they cannot even find a viable missing link. Billions of years? The entire earth should be a literal museum.

The guy who hoaxed this embyo evolution theory "Haeckel" used drawings NOT photos to put across this lie. What happened? It goes into the textbooks and the young students take it onboard as fact. In fact, his drawings bore little resemblance to real embyos and came from his own imagination, which was all done to promote evolution. The sad thing is, even though they were proven fake, they continued to pop up in the science textooks regardless. But is this the fault of people who have been taught these things as fact? Of course not. They are simply told this is so, why should they think otherwise? Teachers are in a position of trust, particularly in science because this is the stuff of reality/fact.

National Geographic is another example of an agenda. On the front of one their magazines where they were displaying ancient foot prints (fully humanly formed) and plenty of animal prints found, they drew a picture to animate this. So in the animal foot prints, they drew the animals, much like what we see today.....yet in the human looking footprints what did they draw? A creature that resembled half baboon and half human. Yet nobody questions it, they accept that this is what we must have looked like. Rather than consider much else, the student in the science room simply accepts what he is told and the amount of study that goes into it, exams etc, to suddenly have their theory questioned/challenged is actually quite a devastating concept and often not up for question. To them, evolution is science and creation is religion. But in actual fact it takes faith to believe in an event you didn't see, and you cannot study. Therefore it is a religion also. But they do not accept that. In fact, a growing number of students have been exposed to both views and are now challenging their teachers in class (much to the alarm of the science teachers). One book that was helping this was "refuting evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati. If one view can be taught in the science room on an event that nobody observed, then why can't the creation view be taught? You see the bias here?

They are basically attempting to fit things into their own belief system, rather than simply giving the facts and allowing the students to think for themselves. I believe that science should simply be taught as it is, "science" and nobody's theory should be forced down anybody's throat as fact. Let's allow the students to come to their own conclusions based on the science that can be studied, tested, observed. Of the stuff that we are not sure of, let's leave that up to the student.

I believe in God by faith, that is my choice. But I do not find that what I observe around me causes me to doubt this, rather for me it further confirms it. But again, I do not force that down someone's throat in a science room. Why does the evolution religion have such free reign? because there is a very real agenda behind the evolution theory. So far they have not been able to give one example of one kind becoming another.

As none of us were there in the beginning to see what occured, then do any of us have the right to call our idea science? There is nothing wrong with science, but science does NOT rely on evolution, true solid science does very well on its own without the requirement for man's theory to be fitted in as fact. And an antigod theory does not suddenly become scientific because it excludes intelligent design, just as creation does not necessarily become unscientific because intelligent design is involved. Both faiths rely on what we observe around us.

Again, keep science as science and your theory and my faith? Do not even NEED to come into it. Where the facts lead a person is the main thing! Students should not be treated as monekys in the science room, but rather intelligent human beings with the huge capacity to learn based on honest science. Dumbing down a student to push across a theory and keeping lies in the textbooks, does not advance science, rather it distorts it and frustrates honest learning. If scientific observable FACTS leads a person to intelligent design or evolution? So be it. But keep the bias out of it.

There cannot really be any real admissions as such to the fallacy of the evolution theory because this would mean rewriting all the textbooks. So even a long since disproven fake is preferable to them to keep in a science textbook, rather than admitting "we really dont know".

I mostly agree with Clay and Bex.

If in my research, I had found evolution to be credible, I would be a passionate defender of the theory.

The simple truth is, evolution is so ridiculous, that it is hard to believe that people would ever accept such an idea. The powers-that-be must laugh out loud when they see people grasping for such far-fetched, unscientific, and mythical ideas.

Missing transitional forms is just one of many deal breakers for evolution.

They way it works is revolves around money—who decides who gets the funding.

Notice what Dr. Haley says in PART 1 of this interview about mercury in vaccines and how grants were completely cut for mercury research when it was discovered that mercury was likely the cause of these issues.

This is an example of the powers-that-be at work promoting sickness, profits for pharmaceutical companies, population reduction, and the dumbing down of the masses, using the control of public money to do it:

http://herballure.com/MediaCenter/HaleyOnAutism.html

The same is true of evolution. If your research does not support evolution (socialism), you will not get funding.

I'm not asking to discuss discrepancies in the history books which do not pertain to creation/evolution. I'm asking, do you even care about these things? Does knowing that such things exist bother you? Or are you, ultiamtely, only concerned about one thing and that is: preventing the youth of today from studying and knowing about evolution?

Would you really, HONESTLY feel better if the education system still taught evolution but put a little label in front of every page which said "This is only a theory, we don't know if it's true or not"?? For some reason, I suspect otherwise. I have a feeling you just want it out of the curriculum altogether and you want Christianity (and no other religion) taught - and not only do you want them taught, you want them taught as fact, not mythology/belief.

Please, I implore you, correct me. Tell me I've misjudged you. I would honestly, sincerely (I am in no way being sarcastic about this) be relieved if you told me I am wrong in my above accusation. I hope nothing more than for you to say "Pwcca, you've misunderstood my statements. I don't mind that evolution is taught, I just don't want it taught as fact, only theory."

Didn't you, yourself, state that you once belived in evolution? It's not "so ridiculous" if there are so many people who accepts it as possibility. And even if it were false, I don't see how you can say believing it is ridiculous. Can it be any more ridiculous than thinking a gigantic MALE homosapien floating in the sky pointed his finger and conjured all life into existence and when we die we sit on clouds with cute little cherubs playing the harp?

Let's put things into perspective here please.

I was taught evolution in the public school system. As a kid, I accepted it but I didn't feel comfortable with it; it never sat right with me. Now I know why.

The world if flat.

Is that ridiculous?

Using your logic, it isn't because so many people believed it.

Am I missing something?

I would honestly suggest trying reading the Bible. It may help you sort out the really bizarre ideas you have about the Christian view of God.


My passion in this life is about truth.

My problem with evolution is the use of public money to promote junk science:

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Another example of junk science:

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted


No, not at all.

Actually I don't believe in public schools.

I believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility.

I believe in the personal freedom for you to decide where to send your children for schooling and I believe in the personal responsibility for you to pay for it.

Whhhhoa wait a minute here.

I've been silently reading this thread, squirming, but feeling it is generally pointless to try to add anything here because I would be told --

That evolution is a myth, is not scientific, etc
That anything I claimed to be a fact would be denied as such and probably called a hoax or junk science
That anything I said was self-evident or logical would be shot down as fantasy
That because we don't understand how some aspects of evolution work the whole thing is wrong

There are no open minds here, at least not among the creationists.

However . . . this comment about schooling, where did that come from? I am a teacher and a parent, so I think I have some valid opinions here.

If you tell people they have to pay to send their children to school, inevitably some won't, and will evade the system. What are you going to do about all the people who can't read or do simple maths then, send them to clean people's toilets, or wait until they commit crimes and stick them in jail where they can provide slave labour?

This would be similar to the US not funding health care. Some people genuinely can't pay, and you get an underclass of people who are not provided with the basics they need if they break a leg or have a heart attack.

Also, these schools that would be set up, out of the government's remit. (And I certainly know that British and American public schools need improving, there's a lot to be done in that respect.) What sort of regulations would they have? Would they be allowed to teach whatever they wanted as long as the majority of parents approved? Aha. We would then have, at least in places like the south where a lot of fundamentalists live, a very fundamentalist curriculum where creationism is taught as fact, and Darwin is depicted as a madman. Right, that's just great. Do you realise what the rest of the world would think of that? While they carry on discovering, and creating new technology, they will be laughing as you guys teach your religious beliefs as fact no matter what actual reality is. You will be left behind as the world progresses. But never mind, at least you will be secure in your righteousness.

Am I way off the mark here? Someone please tell me I didn't understand that statement correctly.

Anon - You repeatedly avoid the points and questions and bring it back to your problems with God with silly reasoning, semi-insulting comments, sarcasm and condescension. It seems that your problem is not with the evidence that we are trying to discuss, (which you won't) but rather your "why" questions about the world. Yet it is you who tells people to grow up? Relax man (or girl), have green tea, have an adult discussion, respond to points and questions in a non-epileptic manner lol.

PWCCA- No, I do not have as much a problem with other errors taught in school, as I think it has less impact, unless of course you are a mayan <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Linda Lou - I haven't gotten the perception you have from the thread. No one is saying don't send kids to school. I value education highly. But, it is now unteachable in school (and science) that perhaps we didn't evolve. But there is strong evidence to suggest this, and large holes in evolutionary theory.

About being open minded, I have researched this from east to west, read many books on the subject (for and against) This is not a quick decision that I've made. You have studied much about mercury, its effect, detox etc. If a dentist (who is very learned himself) were to tell you now that amalgams are safe are you being close minded because you disagree?

Disagreeing does not equal Close mindeness, and close mindedness does not equal intolerance. But since you brought it up, it would seem to me that if anyone were practicing this, mainstream education and science are the ones being close minded when they exclude the idea of intelligent design.

I also enjoy all of you being on the forums (with the exception of anon, but there is hope for him once he hits puberty <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Don't take anything said here beyond the scope of what it is, a debate about creation/evolution. We can (I can anyway) all be friends still, and I think its a good idea to keep this away from the amalgam forum so we can swap boxing gloves for hand holding....I'm cool with that.

Junk science refers to conclusions that are not tested, preproduced and proven. If many of the evidences were brought to a court of law and examined out of the context of evolution, it would certainly create a reasonable doubt.

Case in point (this will take you all of 15 minutes to look up) look up "Lucy" a major discovery for evo theory. Look up the location and conditions of her found bones. Also, check out Avida, a computer program that "proves" evolution, and explain to me how that is the proof they make it out to be.

Well this is a refreshing attitude from someone. You are right, it is best to remember that this is a discussion amongst people who came here to support each other. Letting emotions overspill doesn't help.

I haven't been wanting to get embroiled here in the evolution/creationism debate because there is simply no point in debating with people who say "this is true because it comes from God." It has no context at all for people who don't believe in God; but for people who do, this is all the reason they seem to need, because everyone else is godless and misguided.

I am not convinced by statements from people who say they have "researched" this for years. There is absolutely no way you can claim to have approached the subject with the unbiased mind of a scientist, even if you have convinced yourself that this is the case. You have read the "for and against" with the intention of finding whatever "evidence" you can to blow holes in the idea of evolution to your personal satisfaction. Find me a single person who was a non-religious evolutiuonist and went on to be a non-religious creationist. Go on, I challenge you. I made this challenge on another thread and it was left unanswered. Give me a name and some links and I will check it out and verify it for myself.

This has nothing to do with mercury. What mercury does to the human body is verifiable fact, waiting to be unveiled to anyone who investigates and does the proper tests. Creationism is pure unverifiable religion and has nothing to do with fact or science. You can dress it up that way but it's still the same ideology underneath.

BTW I know Russ didn't say that children shouldn't be sent to school. But if people had to pay for them to go, this is what would happen. It would also encourage a class hierarchy of the worst kind, where wealthy people sent their children to better, more expensive schools, and the poor were left with the bottom of the barrel as usual. This already happens to an extent, where public schools in a particular area are performing very poorly, and wealthier people send their children out of the catchment area or into private education. Is anyone really going to argue that this problem should be magnified by making people pay for schools?

PWCCA, you suspecting me personally of anything won't impact a thing either way. I am not the powers that be in this world. My opinion won't change a thing. If you re-read my post, it is very simple. Why is evolution being taught at all in a science classroom full stop? How about just teaching observable and credible science? I cannot see for the life of me a problem with this, unless you are threatened by the possibility that the loss of theories being spouted might actually allow for the student to concentrate and focus his attention fully on the science he/she can study and observe and form his own personal opinion? rather than be influenced along the way by a theory.

You can suspect me all you wish re my christianity, but this has nothing here to do with what is being taught/proposed as science. It bewilders me that you seem ok with this religion continuing to be pushed in a science classroom, but suddenly so averse to the other side..... Who has the bias here?

If you feel fine about a theory being taught or suggested as possible.... then you should be fine with both sides having equal hearing. If you dont? Then why not drop both?

My post has pointed out more than once that it should be just credible SCIENCE taught. Instead you are coming up with ways to try and divert the subject of this forum (errors in history or now personal accusations). I could jump and down in the privacy of my own room and yell "i want my Christian religion in the science room" COME ON, what a joke. I'm not threated by true science, so therefore I feel no need for Christianity to enter the science room. It is by faith that people come to Christ. If they should happen to come to Christ by being taught science with nobodys agendas/theories, then so be it that is up to their own observations (and vice versa). But again it is about teaching science as it is. That way it is fair for everybody. Christian and non Christian alike, unless either one has a problem with factual observable science?

Evolution, while potentially not factual, is not a religion. Call it belief if you will (much as I believe that Elvis Presley is indeed dead and that Martians are not orbiting our planet in invisible flying saucers), but you stand only to discredit yourself by calling it a religion. Evolution has no deities nor does it discuss the existence or lack of deities – evolution is not concerned with deities. Evolution is compatible with every non-extremist version of every religion. The reason for this is because it is not a religion itself. Evolution does not have ceremonies, rituals or consecrations. It does not have holidays. Evolution is a scientific theory, much as any other – and if you believe it or any other scientific theory to be true, then you … well … you believe it to be true. I mean, isn’t it that simple? You’re certainly not a disciple, clad in your Evolutionist’s robes, performing your daily Evolutionist’s rites. We can all agree that that’s a silly parallel, right?

I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in school. Simply introduce it to students as a theory and not verifiable fact (if you’re so inexorably fixated on pointing out the difference) and I don't see how even the most bible-touting of Christians should have a problem with it. The Christian Fundamentalists/Extremists of this forum are stating that they disagree with evolution being taught in school because it is not proven. Fine, excellent. I'll play along with that. It's not proven. Class, would you all please turn to page 110 in your science books where we will now discuss a theory believed by a great number of people in this world today known as Evolution - tomorrow we will discuss another T H E O R Y known as Creation. Please look at the bottom of your books where there is a warning label preventing us from being sued which reads: 'We are not teaching you to believe these things, we are teaching you to know of these things (much as if I taught you about Hinduism I would not be teaching you to believe it either) so that you can obtain a worldly view and a broader perspective and also because if we did not teach you of their existence then the rest of the world would certainly have a great advantage over you.’

I’ll say this one more time. As clear and polite as I possibly can. If you want evolution taken out of the books as fact, than take it out as fact. Let it exist as theory. Even if it is a false theory, you are preventing children from obtaining an open view of the world by omitting it from their learning. By all means, put creation in the school books. I encourage this to be done. But then put it in as theory alongside the THEORY of evolution and we can all live happily ever after.

If that's the case then I suppose they'd better include creation myths from other religions too. No doubt a small minority of adherents also believe the literal truth of these, though they are nowhere near as vocal as the Christians. Should we include the Great Green Arkleseizure from Hitchhiker's Guide too, or would that be pushing things a bit?

Creation myths are beautiful stories that say a lot about life and resonate with the psyche on a deep level, if you approach them with respect rather than derision. And like Pwcca said, religious moderates around the world (i.e. the vast majority of people) have no trouble getting truths out of these AND accepting the discoveries of science. It only becomes a problem when the myths are believed to be literal fact -- that's where you get a conflict with reality. People who believe these things word-for-word are missing a lot of the deeper meaning that the myths are meant to impart.

A lot of what I am saying was originally inspired, half a lifetime ago for me, by Joseph Campbell, and he in turn was inspired by Carl Jung. This would be obvious to anyone familiar with what he wrote and taught. The Hero With a Thousand Faces is considered one of his best, though The Power of Myth (a transcript of a conversation between Campbell and Bill Moyers) is very readable, and reading that was a turning point in my life.

I will share what I've found out about these evidences supporting evolution:

They are lies.

It takes work to find this out, but just as dealing with a good con artist takes work to muttle through all the lies, it takes work to get to the bottom about the vast lies used to promote evolution.

The process to do this is to research the "evidences" one-by-one. If you are prudent in doing this, you will find what I found—lie after lie—a mountain of lies.

Any why all these lies?

To discredit the Bible (evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive) so that people would—in large—cease reading it and would therefore—in ignorance—submit to the centralization (socialism) of power and ensuing corruption that will follow, that knowledge of Biblical principles would otherwise prevent.

The methods they use to create and promote these lies are not magic. It is simply a coordinated effort by a group of people who give "benefits" (bribes) for the promotion of these lies in the form of funding, research grants, consultant fees, etc., etc.

Just like the safety of Nutrasweet was "proven scientifically" by a technician who was paid $30,000 to say that a group of test mice ate phenylalanine (an amino acid in Nutrasweet) when they did not eat it. I actually saw this story years ago when it originally aired on the news program 60 Minutes.

Soon after the story, Nutrasweet began a large advertising campaign on the same network ($$$) and then the occasional news story about the neurotoxin was bright and cheerful on that same network.

This is the way it really works. The same holds true with evolution and so for amalgams.

Like I said, only someone who wants to take the Bible literally word-for-word would have a problem with what science understands and teaches, because that's when you get a direct conflict between the two. If you feel your religious precepts are under threat then I can understand why you would go to such lengths to deny reality and tell yourself that it's actually a bunch of lies. You can say that anything is a hoax if you want. You could even deny that what you are seeing with your eyes is real, because sometimes our eyes deceive us. You could also say that because there are some big lies and cover-ups in the world, e.g. use of amalgams, that there are others too, one conspiracy after another. Concrete facts please?

Any takers for my challenge to find me a non-religious evolutionist who became a non-religious creationist? No? I can't say I'm surprised. Even if the evolutionist started out as being non-religious, then by its very definition of there being a creator-God, creationism requires theism. When you then feel that your science and your religion are in conflict, one has to win. Sometimes religion wins and people unfortunately decide to blank out what they thought they knew and fill their minds with ignorant superstition. Many scientists have found a way to marry religion with science, so it's obviously not impossible. Evolution and the bible are only mutually exclusive if you take the Bible as literal truth, which most people don't. This is an example of black-and-white thinking if I've ever seen one.

I watched a lot of that Ken Hovind vid, as painful as it was. I take it no one here wants to return the gesture by finding anything out about Joseph Campbell. Not even to turn around and tell me he's blasphemous, ignorant, etc? OK. Well I haven't read anything of his in years so if nothing else, I've inspired myself to crack out the old books again, or for that matter do some searching on the web.

I know about Lucy. The claim that Lucy's knee was found far from the rest of the skeleton is false. The skeleton called Lucy does not have an intact knee. A different, isolated knee fossil was found two to three kilometers away (Johanson and Edey 1981). Confusion over the two fossils apparently led to the false claim.

I take it your purpose in citing this particular incident was to show me how creationists don't check their facts? Many thanks. I like to check them myself and I will from now on. What other creationist ideas would you like to discuss?

And what is your specific problem with Avida, other than (possibly) you don't believe a computer could achieve anything like an accurate model of evolution? If I were trying to "prove" evolution then I would not cite one small example like this anyway. The huge body of knowledge across many scientific disciplines is already there.

Much evidence against evolution? Spamming text is not evidence, I am not interested much in your points as much as your sources (which you didn't post). This isn't the tabloids

Please just answer me this
Much evidence to point to ID? can you post a few quick ones (NOT A MEGA COPY/PASTE), and not word games reaching conclusions while taking huge leaps of logic
I see the word evidence thrown around here by creationists so much that I think you people don't know what it means
I can understand you claiming evolution is not a finished conclusion. Too many scientists make a lot of sketchy studies on they want to believe (global warming, amalgams to name a few examples)
But to actually claim there is evidence for design? I'd respect you more if you said you had FAITH in a creator.
And just because you think your religion/beliefs seem more practical/plausible by adapting them to today's society than believing in a greek god or Allah doesn't make less silly, they are derived from the same silly ideas

Scientists can make stupid statements too (what a shocker, since we are all humans and all)
Should start posting the massive amount of retard remarks made in name of Creationism

I think the bible discredits itself, The god of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
The new testament is a huge improvement in teachings and morals, but there is still silliness aplenty in the name of god.

Linda Lou - No one is asking you to put faith in god, or use that as your reasoning to believe anything, we are asking you to go the other direction ...just to look at the evidence. I will not talk about god or the bible, just the evidence (I suggest others do the same to keep all arguments admissable) The amalgam example is very useful, you have researched it and found what you believe to be the truth, you are no longer being close minded by sticking with that. That was the context of that example. Also, It doesn't hold much weight telling someone that the research they have done has not been thorough or unbiased, if you have not done it yourself. If you want to refute or disprove or debate the evidence i bring, than you must atleast be able to hold your own in that arena. Shouting from the sidelines of a game you haven't played in holds little weight. I still find your posts well thought out and look forward to your reply.

Kriminal,
This is a direct rebuttle to your original post, and its all (mostly) my words. It doesn't involve any other research, just questioning your reasonings on things, and how they stand as "proof" of anything. Suggestion or conclusion does not substantiate proof. I put it in iatalics so others can skip it if they like.


2. Morphological evidence: One example is that the inner ears of these fossils are shaped in intermediate forms similar to modern whales and modern artiodactyls: this is because the ears had to develop to be suitable for an aquatic environment.
The shape of the feet of these fossils is also uniquely similar to whales and artiodactyls.

Even today there are infinite species that display similarities to each other. This does not however dictate that they evolved from each other. It is speculation . No more "concrete" than looking at two paintings and speculating if they were made by the same artist. A guess doesn't constitute science. The hypothesis must be proved and to date, we have yet to prove that anything morphs into another species.

3. Molecular Biological Evidence: When their genes are studied, whale genes are more similar to those of ungulates than any other mammals.

again, not proof that they created different species, speculation.

4. Vestigial Evidence: Vestigial pelvic bones, femora, tibiae, are found in modern whales. The fossil record shows a gradual diminishing of these bones. Whales also have vestigial olfactory nerves (needed for smell normally). Also, vestigial muscles for moving ears.

Gill slits are an example of what evolutionists call vestigial organs. The idea is that sometime in the distant past these organs had a purpose, but they are no longer useful. Vestigial organs imply evolution. If man were created, there would be no reason for them. Evolutionists found 180 vestigial organs, most of which were muscles. Only six are still around. The rest are now known to be useful or even essential.

From 180 down to six is a pretty good drop in vestigial organs. Given a few more years, it is reasonable to think we might find functions for the rest of them too. Naturalists no longer stress vestigial organs. They have proved to be an embarrassment.



5. Embryological Evidence: The whale embryo retains primordial features that are abandoned later on: body hair, hind limb buds, ear pinnae, olfactory lobes of the brain (again, for smelling. These don't exist in adults). Embryos of baleen whales develop teeth, but these disappear before birth.

In 1868 Ernst Haeckel, an enthusiastic supporter of evolution, formulated his "fundamental biogenetic law." It states that an embryo goes through stages during which it resembles its ancestry. At one point, the human embryo has a feature resembling fish gills, so we must have had fish in our ancestry, concluded Haeckel.
According to Haeckel, everything in the animal kingdom descended from a gastrula, which is an early stage in most animals embryonic development. He faked evidence to support his claim. Haeckel was caught and admitted that some of his embryonic drawings were forgeries.
Notwithstanding, the gill slit misconception caught on and is still cited as evidence that humans evolved from fish. Although the pouches do superficially resemble fish gills, they have nothing to do with breathing. They are the early states of the lower jaw, ear, and neck including the thyroid and parathyroid glands. It's a feature of embryonic function, not evolution.
What this embryonic claim really proved was just how eager nineteenth century evolutionists were to use any argument, however specious, to further their cause.


6. Geochemical Evidence: Whales had to move from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water. Fresh and salt water each have different isotopic ratios of oxygen, which is recorded in whale skeletons (namely, teeth). Earlier whale fossils have low ratios of heavy oxygen, while later whale fossils have more (mainly drinking salt water).

This is following the assumption that they came from one another. If you wanted to actually prove this, it would have to be done as a standalone theory. Adaptations within species is different than changing species.

7. Paleoenvironmental Evidence: This is where we look at the other things these whale fossils were associated with. We predict that since earlier whales like Sinonyx were land mammals, we'd find these fossils among other terrestrial animals. Pakicetus was more adapted for water so we'd expect to see their fossils associated with aquatic critters, as well as unique sediment formations of low-lying wet terrestrial environments. Sure enough, this is the case.

This is baffling. Your saying that the fact that a land mammal's remains were found on land and an aquatic animals remains were found near water proves that they evolved into each other?


8. Paleobiogeographic evidence: Land whales wouldn't have the mobility of aquatic whales, so we'd expect to find their fossils in a much more restricted geographic region. Sure enough, Sinonyx is found primarily in central Asia. Pakicetus is found only in Afghanistan.

Again, this is no more proof of evolution than creation.

9. Chronological Evidence: Since evolution is essentially forced by changing environments or invited by new opportunities, we should be able to detect some sensible reason as to why whales developed to move into the seas. During the early Cenozoic, whales had to fill in niches left over with the extinction of the dinosaurs. Large mesozoic reptile predators were gone, so mammals were free to conquer the seas. Whale fossils are consistently found in this restricted time frame.

Much of the early material on evolution theorized that life came out of the seas...not from land into the sea. This point you are making though does not rule out that a species became the weaker and gave way to extinction and the growth in the population of another, now dominant species. I consistently see evolutionists pointing to "evidence" of evolution, when it can no more be ruled out as intelligent design. How does this prove evolution and disprove creation?


I encourage all of you to read the post in this forum "evolution disproved in 50" I have read another book of this guys and it is quite fascinating. But very briefly, he starts out by saying that Math, unlike science, is not open to interpretation. Numbers don't lie, and on most of his arguments, you would be hard pressed to find someone who would refute the parameters he has set up. It's an interesting read.

To sum up my post, let's get off of all of the superfluous stuff and talk about all this evidence.

It would be easier if we took this one topic at a time; I think it's best for all posters if we avoided very long and detailed posts. I'm getting tired of writing a book every time I come here. Having said that, you brought these things up, so OK then.

That's a very roundabout way of getting around your Lucy point, no mention of that in your post. Just an attempt to strip what I said of any authority by claiming I don't know what I'm talking about and am just, er, shouting from the sidelines. Sorry, you'll have to do better. Address what I am actually saying please.

Morphological evidence, well that's a whole topic unto itself isn't it. But no, we're not simply guessing when we look at a couple of creatures and think they might have a similar origin. Science doesn't work that way. Even when scientists are inspired by intuition, they will put their ideas to the test. Factual evidence from a number of different scientific disciplines can go into the study of the evolution of a species. If you would like to name a more concrete example we can talk about this in more detail. Like others here have said, you may cite the tome you pasted in this thread, but I am not going to wade through it. I could paste huge chunks of info here too but out of respect for the audience and the medium we are using, I try to be brief and to the point where I can.

Assuming for now that what you say is true about whale genes -- what is your point about them being similar to ungulates? These are mammals. What would you rather they were more similar to? Problem with this?

Vestigial evidence -- Darwin himself never claimed that vestigial organs must be functionless. In his section on vestigial organs in On the Origin of Species (which you ought to read if you are going to talk against it on threads like this), he emphasises that vestiges can be functional and gives several examples. The entirety of which I will not put here, but in brief:

"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other . . . Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given."

"Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, are either quite useless, such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely as sails."

". . . an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose."

Saying that functional vestigial organs proves evolution wrong is to ignore the original context and definition of the term vestigial. Darwin said that vestigial structures have lost their original, greater physiological significance, not ALL physiological significance.

Haeckel was wrong. Does this disprove evolution? No. It doesn't invalidate anything other than what Haeckel said, and he was post-Darwin. Scientists get it wrong sometimes. That's why it's always important to check your facts and test what you think you know, as well as what you've just discovered. All it usually takes is convincing evidence to the contrary. Creationism ain't it folks. BTW do creationists ever admit they got something wrong?

You are oversimplifying where you talk about whales. I have read before about the oxygen isotopes in the teeth. You say that this alone isn't enough evidence for you. You then claim that when logical predictions are used, and we find land animals where we would predict and aquatic animals where we would predict, that is not enough evidence for you. I have seen evidence of plenty of what I would call transitional forms and the reasons for these being considered to be so, though I am aware that creationists seem to want to have a smooth line documenting every single little change over the years before they might be willing to say these are transitional forms -- and maybe not even then. You then say that evolutionists claim one animal evolved into the other. If you have studied this for 20 years as you say then you know evolution is more complex and less straightforward than that.

I see a lot of evidence here when you combine all these things. Still not convinced? What are you waiting for, what kind of evidence would actually convince you, if any? It's easy to be a creationist isn't it. Just keep saying there's not enough evidence, and that any fact presented to you cannot be proved or is a hoax.

You seem to have trouble believing it's possible that creatures left the sea at one point, and returned to the sea later. I'm not sure what your point here is, other than you personally find it improbable, which has no basis in science or fact. If there is an ecological niche to be exploited, then creatures with the ability to do so, will exploit it. Reptiles returned to the seas and the crocodile, an amazing example of a successful species, is still around today. (And before you try to start another debate, it is entirely possible for a creature to have evolved a long time ago and still be around, and also for other creatures to have evolved from it that either became extinct or are still around too.) And as you say, after the mass extinction that included the dinosaurs, a lot of ecological niches opened up -- in the air, on land and in the seas. Mammals, which had remained more or less unchanged for 100 million years, began to evolve very quickly once this happened. Why wouldn't some of them have returned to the seas? Obviously this would not have happened overnight, but in evolutionary terms it might have been fairly quick. Why not, what's your beef here?

By all means carry on the discussion, but can we focus on fewer things at a time and try to trim the length of the posts? I would appreciate it, thanks.

Linda.

PWCCA, Ive noticed, you tend to branch into some kind of patronsing accusations towards anybody that questions the evolution theory being taught in the science room. Do you really think that calling someone a Christian or "Christian fundamentalist" is somehow insulting and an ongoing instrument for you to use in order to blur your own obvious bias here? Im proud of my faith, but I have no need for it to be drummed into people in a science room as the evolutionists do to keep their belief alive. It's actually the only way they can do it because if they discontinue preaching it, the student then begins to think for themselves based on the factual science he/she is being exposed to. This is how school subject should work. Fantasies and ideas should not have to enter into it, unless you're teaching a subject on myths/legends.

So I will politely and clearly as I can, get the subject back to that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

What i have mentioned is what you touched upon in your above post. The theory/fact of evolution and the responsibility of those in the science arena to NOT mislead students, but rather teach the science that they can observe and any ideas outside of that should definitely be CLEARLY stated as such and should then be open to ideas of intelligent design as well. Both are beliefs on how we got here and to give the students both options to consider (or ignore if they wish) is much fairer obviously.

but again to give both views in a science classroom would likely take up an enormous amount of time, (let's be honest here) and just imagine the arguments in the classroom between believers and non believers? Check this forum out for an example. This is exactly what would occur in the science room. Trust me it would erupt into ongoing debates.

So if ONE theory is taught, either the student feels happy with the theory being suggested OR has to remain silent because there isn't the option of intelligent design and it isn't up for debate. It's simply religious to believe that, but scientific to consider evolution....This is eventually what people believe. Why do you suppose the majority in science believe evolution? Because that is what is being taught, it's a no brainer. You teach students what you want them to believe even without facts to back this up, training them like monkeys and they'll parrot the same.

I feel it is better for them to take up most of the time with true science and then the rest that we cannot test, the ideas could be discussed carefully (perhaps quite briefly) either way. But again bias/dishonesty will always creep in when it gets off solid science and into the realm of fantasy/ideas.

Teaching "beliefs" in a science room is going to be problematic for the obvious reasons. I still dont see the necessity of it when the rest of science takes up enough time as it is. True science and the study of it requires a lot of study, why do you suppose that unless evolution is taught, we are shutting down the minds of students? Are you afraid that if a bias or this ONE idea is not taught/proposed, that maybe the students will then have the chance to consider something else? Believe me, they won't consider anything else if the teacher drums evolution in to them and this is exactly what we see. So rather than opening their minds, they are pretty much moulding them into their own belief system (evolution). how is that science?

You ask any evolutionist and most will tell you it's a fact. Watch the nature shows as a prime example of the push for evolution. The only reality you get is the observed present or photographed/filmed past (none of which contain any examples of evolution,apart from the narrators suggestions). The unrecorded history is happily filled in for us by the evolutionists and the viewers sit there swallowing it happily.

You know that people are bias, all of us are in one way or the other. Everybody on here is no matter how much we pretend we're not. Giving ideas to kids is ok if you are going to allow for questioning and to be honest to call it an "idea" rather than being deceitful about it and attempting to have them believe it as fact (so many do). If they were already doing this, we would not have people adamant that evolution is a fact. It is the ONLY theory taught in the science room, which is why so many believe it happened. They consider the idea of design unscientific.

So it's all fine and great that we can sit here PWCCA and discuss what would be fair, but it isn't really happening out there is it? Evolution is up for you I or to believe, not up for the science teacher to push on students because they are against OR are NOT allowed to teach any idea other than one which supports an anti intelligent design theory. Both of these views are so completely opposite and opposed to the other, that we must come to either conclusion. Either we got here by chance, or we got here by purpose.

Claythrow Nice job at avoiding my question
You said you provided a lot of evidence for design, and I have yet to see it
I don't want your thoughts on evolution or what you think the holes in it are. You can pretty much make an argument for EVERYTHING in the universe, but unless it is supported it doesn't really hold water. You claimed that evolution was disproved (scientifically I hope) so I wanted to see credible sources of this. And as always science is under construction.


Again my main question is whats your evidence for design? You claim to have posted it in this thread

Bex I'm sure Pwcca can and will speak for himself, but I have views on this too and I would like to share them.

You seem to want creationism given equal weight in the science curriculum to evolution. The main problem with this is that one is religion and one is science. You are doing your best to convince yourself as well as everyone else that creationism has science to it (it doesn't), and evolution is equatable with religion -- it isn't, there's plenty of proof for it across many different scientific disciplines. It is about as close to certain as anything can get. Good scientisis will always be open to new data and new interpretations, but they are not going to come from creationism. If you want to continue to argue that creationism is scientific in any way, and that evolution is not factual, I will be happy to discuss any examples you care to give.

Linda.

Alas, this conversation has finally come full circle.

A while ago I told you that I knew where this conversation would lead and that was that it would lead to a debate over who we believe is telling the truth.

Well, here are are.

(1) Some will choose to believe creationists who believe that lying is a sin and that it could end you up in hell.

(2) Others will choose to believe evolutionists who have a financial interest in providing "evidence" for creation.

We'll each have to make that decision for ourselves.


I am convinced that the only reason people can continue to believe in evolution is that they simply cannot comprehend the massive amount of highly organized information that has to be arranged in order to come up with life.

To believe that mutations over a number of events (which is really what "time" represents—"time" is only used to confuse the issue in the minds of people who don't think this through) can form the human eye is, well, plain ridiculous. To think that these same mutations can form two symmetrical eyes used to provide stereoscopic vision is, well, there is just no word for it. I guess I'll borrow a Biblical word:

Blindness.

I may have an advantage as a person who used to design embedded systems and who understands the fragility and complexity of technology. But I certainly wish that people would not corrupt the wonderful process of science (which I love) by comingling it with lies and deceptions for profit and power.

Nevertheless, I never received a response to my statements about the roulette wheel, so I am reposting below:

If you play roulette, there is, let's say, a 50% chance that you'll hit red. The next time you play, the chance of hitting red does not increase. It stays exactly the same. This means that the chance that you'll hit red two times in a row diminishes by 75%.

When you consider the enormous amounts of highly-organized DNA that is different between humans and chimps (even if it is only 5%), and you consider the statistical probability that those DNA would organize into symmetrical representations performing all of the highly-detailed changes through the "natural" processes we know affect them, the chances of getting something other than a blob of nondescript cancer through chance is like playing red on a roulette wheel with 1 red and 1,000,000,000,000 black, and this is a very conservative figure. It does not matter how much time you add to the equation. This concept of "time" is added to confuse the issue to those who don't understand how this works.

To make this model more physical, consider the changes in the lengths of the bones in the fingers; they would all have to be changed, and the corresponding ligaments and tendons would have to change accordingly. The lubricative cartilage would also have to change correctly in proportion to each change in the bone. You also have to consider that the other side of the body would have to symmetrical in all of its changes to make a human. You then have to consider the ratio of harmful change as compared to beneficial, which bends the curve even further towards impossible.

When you really begin to consider all of the implications of these "small" changes, you find that it becomes statistically impossible for all of these changes to take place and therefore, chimps cannot change into humans no matter how much time you water the equation with. Again, time is added to confuse. The real analysis is the probability of the number of mutations and the ratio of beneficial to harmful. Properly understood, no person would play this kind of roulette.

As I always say, at the core, people don't believe in evolution because there is evidence or probability to support it. There is not (and what little there appears to be is based on outright deceptions). People believe in evolution because they do not want to believe the alternative: That a large, concerted effort is underway to promote evolutionary myths because those funding its promotion are profiting wildly from it.

It takes courage to swim against the human tendency to follow, but for the sake of science and intellectual integrity, I will.

Just a few things to think about.

Protein-folding mechanisms

The eye: Rods and cones, optic nerve, symmetry, stereoscopic vision

The respiratory system, lungs, oxygen transport and exchange, symmetry.

The lymphatic system, lymph nodes, waste exchange, lymphatic fluid chemistry

The structural system, symmetry, ligaments, cartilage, joints and sockets, composition, fluid flow through bones

The nervous system, chemical electrical systems, brain signaling to organs, positive and negative feedback systems, the brain itself, the brain signaling muscles and the precious and complex interaction involved

The digestive system, enzymes, nutrient absorption, peristaltic action

The glandular system, ph balancing, growth hormones, sugar regulation, positive and negative feedback systems, sleep regulation, sexual development and complex systems therein, the matching sexual development between genders,

The immune system, chemical signaling, regulation, knowledge of self and non-self

Toe nails and finger nails having symmetry and repetition.

Eye lashes, eye brows, the spinal cord, the heart, heart beat regulation, bone marrow, etc., etc.

Another huge consideration for evolutionists to ponder is why we don't see massive numbers of these very small changes in fossils. In fact, we should see millions of malformed fossils representing the "bad" mutations that even evolutionists admit will occur, but we don't see these either.

We simply see clear delineations between kinds.

Of course punctuated equilibrium attempted to explains this away, but this is simply so much more ridiculous that even evolutionists didn't want to be associated with that idea.

Evolutionists also have the population problem. If life has been on Earth for as long as they say it has, the math simply does not work to explain current populations.

There are some honest evolutionists that are also not blind however.

Prof. H. H. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution," p. 57, says, "Reluctant as we may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution." "If all the facts are in accord with it, and none are found that are incapable of being reconciled with it, a working hypothesis is said to have been advanced to a proven theory." Note this admission by a leading evolutionist.


The powers-that-be laugh at the masses for blindly accepting such nonsense that they churn out at the hands of frail and immoral (bribeable) men.


The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments


Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is a theory in denial.

Well I guess you know the answers then
To believe in creation you don't have to believe in your Christian interpretation, shocking as it may be your "view of the truth" is only held by a third of the world (including derivations of your group)
You cannot say they are providing evidence for creation, it implies we were created. I guess while you have studied some about evolution, but you still went in with religious bias and never gave it a chance.
You seem to attribute blame of almost everything to evil capitalists getting rich. The sheer audacity to make this claim when it is completely the opposite. The majority of the government is christian (god told Bush to invade Iraq) religious people get tax breaks all the time, and I think the founding fathers of this country would be shocked when today people mix religion and politics to make laws/reforms.
About a year ago in the news I saw about a supreme court ruling that a church in New Mexico was exempt from the law in the taking of hallucinogenic drugs. They could get high just because it was to get a "religious experience"


This is completely backwards too. People get turned off from science and reason because the world is incredible, and instead of trying to understand it, it is more comforting to think that there is a god and we are special to him.

I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
ALBERT EINSTEIN





The 50 arguments disproving evolution, it is just a book I'm guessing? and by a reverend?
And if we are going to start posting videos as evidence might as well post the ones about 9/11 being a conspiracy, with dramatic music when spouting off sketchy info and making huge jumps of logic to conclusions

I have yet to see the creationists claiming to have evidence for creationism provide it

And if you are going to claim people are frail, ignorant or gullible it is religious people. Science depends on reason and understanding, skepticism on everything. There is nothing to gain except knowledge. It is not your imagination of scientist in dark rooms getting rich by believing in evolution.
People believe in creationism because they were raised that way, or Pascal's wager or to be comforted and feel special when they lose someone they love

Let’s get straight to the point shall we.

You say you don’t believe that complex life could organise itself. Well what you really have to look at here is the very first, simple, primitive single-celled organisms, different from anything alive today (which would outcompete or eat them), because as millions and even billions of years went by they evolved into more complex structures.

Amino acids and other complex molecules are known to form even in space. I like to keep abreast of the latest astronomy news and I know that just recently some of these discoveries have been reported. Some good information has also come from space probes that crashed into comets or that brought back samples from them. Be as incredulous as you like, it’s the truth. (I truly hope you come up with an original or even rational response to this, rather than the usual “you don’t know what you’re talking about,” or “it’s all a hoax”.)

Nobody denies that the origin of life on earth is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. There are all kinds of fascinating ideas and research going on regarding this. I, too, stand in awe of the very nature of life; but not fully understanding something piques my interest for investigation; it does not lead me to decide that the only explanation must be divine in origin. No good scientist thinks we know it all. Many creationists seem to think this though, and like to claim that every admission that science doesn’t understand something is proof that science is wrong. Not logical folks.

Also, no one would claim that Darwin’s theories explain how life actually began, though they do a very plausible job of explaining the rich diversity of creatures that have existed on the earth since then.

You have repeated your roulette analogy here. What you seem to be saying is that the odds of beneficial mutations, leading to the evolution of successful new species, are very small, is that right? You are looking at this process as one of pure chance, and that is where you are mistaken about how the process actually works. Firstly, linking to what I just said, it is rather specious to say that DNA organised itself into complex structures procuding human beings. Once life on earth began, it gradually became more complex as it evolved. It literally took billions of years for single-celled organisms to become arranged in the first simple soft-bodied life forms. There must have been a lot of mutation and natural selection going on during that time. Natural selection and genetic variation are not chance, properly understood, so the roulette analogy becomes meaningless in this context. Do you actually have On the Origin of Species to refer to when checking your understanding of evolutionary vocabulary, and the actual source of many of the ideas you are debating?

You said: “This concept of ‘time’ is added to confuse the issue to those who don't understand how this works.” Would you explain what you meant by this please?

Saying that chimps changed into humans is surprisingly simplistic for someone who says he’s been “researching” this for years. Evolution doesn’t quite work that way. You said the changes from ape to human are statistically impossible. Again, genetic variation and natural selection are not pure chance, so this argument is meaningless. Do you want me to define natural selection and genetic variation for you?

You go on to list all sorts of organs and systems that you say are too complex to have evolved. You seem fond of expressing your incredulity, but this is not exactly a scientific or logical approach to any subject. Evolutionary mechanisms do account for the evolution of complexity, since non-lethal mutations tend to add more components to simple systems than they remove (Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006). This is from an abstract of Lenski et al. (2003, 139) and should hopefully dispel some of your incredulity. I trust you will therefore have the patience to read it:

***A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms -- computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.***

Let’s take just one example from your list, because this is going to be another book at this rate. The eye. Darwin himself said that the evolution of the eye seemed “absurd” at first glance (pardon the pun), but he then went on to follow that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps:

·photosensitive cell
·aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
·an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
·pigment cells forming a small depression
·pigment cells forming a deeper depression
·the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
·muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favour the increments. Since eyes do not fossilise well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

I could give some examples of these steps from comparative anatomy and genetics if you like, or is this enough?

If this post is getting too long for peoples’ liking, I would add that I am just responding to the points Russ raised, many of which I’ve seen bounced around all over this forum without challenge, and it’s about time they were. I don’t like writing long posts myself and would ask again that people posting points for discussion would limit them to one or two at a time.

I do like your list though, Russ. It implies an appreciation of the wonder of life, which we both share.

OK, massive numbers of small changes in fossils. Why exactly are you wanting “massive numbers”? Look at how fossils came to be in the first place. (No, not all as hoaxes put together by the Chinese.) Certain conditions are required for a carcass to fossilise. That fossil then has to stay intact for many years, in some cases millions or even billions, without ending up being pulled into the mantle by subduction of the earth’s crust, without being eroded away by wind or water, without being destroyed as the crust buckles and crumples into hills and mountains, or fuses rocks together in its depths. We haven’t even found all of the fossils in the world; there must be many more buried under the earth, under ice or under lakes and oceans that no one has by chance come across. I’ve said elsewhere that there are transitional forms, though creationists don’t seem to like to admit that this is what these are, or always seem to want an extra “step” between two of these forms. Some changes do take place rapidly and this can be explained in a number of ways, one of them being punctuated equilibrium. PE doesn’t attempt to explain anything away, it is a workable hypothesis. Even if the whole thing were completely discredited tomorrow, it would not invalidate all of evolution. Scientists coming up with ideas, and testing them, in order to explain the evidence at hand is what science it all about. I suspect you made the “explain it away” remark because that is what a creationist sets out to do for as many concepts of evolution as possible, but that’s by-the-by. PE itself has not been discredited, though there are some major difficulties with phyletic gradualism – is this what you were referring to?

You say we should see millions of malformed fossils representing the “bad” mutations. This expectation springs more from nuclear disaster scenarios than the true concepts of evolution. You need to look at how mutations happen and how they actually work, in the animal and in the species. Whole books have been written on this topic. It is true that in modern nuclear disasters, we have seen some horrific mutations in life which has been exposed to radiation. Are you wanting to see fossils that also show these kinds of horrific mutations? Very unlikely, for a number of reasons:

Nuclear disasters don’t happen in nature. These can cause extensive damage throughout the body. Natural mutations don’t work like that.

Most mutations occur at a molecular level. Most of the time they have no perceptible effect at all, or are fatal (thus the animal would not survive to reproduce). If the animal does not reproduce, you are asking for a one-off unique fossil of a “bad” mutation showing perceptible “flaws,” like 5 legs? Like I said, this is something you might see in a film or in Chernobyl, but you’d be very lucky indeed to find such a fossil.

Almost all mutations which aren’t “silent” and which aren’t eliminated immediately are neither completely advantageous or deleterious. The mutation produces a slightly different protein, and the cell and the living organism work slightly differently. Whether the mutation is helpful or harmful depends on the environment. It could be either.

Right, the “population problem” now. What sort of a model are you looking at Russ, when you claim that the math doesn’t work? I can only conclude that you are making a lot of assumptions, such as the growth rate of the human population was always constant, which is a false. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years. Human hunter-gatherer numbers were limited by available resources and competition for them.

Finally, this quote from H. H. Newman. You could selectively quote any scientist and say that those quotes support your arguments. I have no idea of the context from which this was extracted. Giving the book and the page number only supports the likelihood that these words were indeed lifted from the book, do you expect me to go out and buy it to verify what is really being said? I would want to see the whole page, or preferably the whole chapter. The quote I gave above from Darwin? You could lift that out of context too, quote Darwin as saying that the idea of eyes evolving is “absurd,” and leave it at that. Lots and lots of people use this tactic but it’s just plain dishonest.

Right, I think that’s everything for now. Please PLEASE can we try to keep posts briefer. It’s doing my cortisol in and frankly there are more important things I should be doing with my time. Shorter posts here and there are surely preferable for most people.

I’ll start. Archaeopteryx. Discuss.

Linda.

Kriminal,

You said


Nice try, but dead wrong.

I studied evolution long before I was a Christian, and I am being honest with you when I say:

Even if I never became a Christian; even if I hated the Bible and all it stands for, I would never, ever believe in evolution. It is absolutely absurd and the very inventors of this control mechanism laugh at the people who accept it. It's no wonder the ruling elite believe we're as dumb as sheep.

I can't tell you enough how honest I am being here.

Even if I became a whole-hearted secular humanist, I would have to reject the religious part of secular humanism that pronounces evolution as the basis of their religion.



You must be joking. You don't really believe this do you?

Listen, take a break and watch a little educational entertainment.

Bush Nazi Family Ties



With all due respect, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Concerning 501-C3 tax breaks: That is only a control levied against churches requiring them not to get involved in politics.

In other words: It's a bribe.

Again, with all due respect, there is much you still have to learn.

Oh, and here is an excellent 9-11 video and some other wonderful things just for you:


Just Click Play



The Conspiracy Thread

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

The Lincoln Assassination and the Jesuit Connection, Jon Eric Phelps (MP3)

Biblical Sorcery and Modern Drugs

...but outside are sorcerers...

...they did not repent of their medication...

...for by your medication were all the nations deceived.

Kennedy On Secret Societies

Bush Nazi Family Ties

New Age Bible Versions

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Loose Change

Enjoy.

Linda, I have said (more than once now), that I do not believe either belief is necessary to be suggested in a science room in order to teach science.

I have faith in true science surviving very nicely without the requirement to push in a theory and call it science without any observable facts. I mentioned that I know a science teacher who does not teach evolution in his science class...and so far the kids are surviving nicely. He says he leaves that up to them and just teaches the rest. Nor does he mention intelligent design. Just teaches honest science without an agenda or bias. Suggestions can be tossed around by the students, but he says if he has no evidence for it, he doesn't feel comfortable about indoctrinating them on an assumption and have them believe it as fact. An idea/assumption/theory is put across in such a way that people have accepted that it's a fact and you are an example of this. Already convinced it's science, yet science is something you can prove, test, observe. Just because a theory excludes intelligent design Linda, doesn't suddenly make it science, or even logical. It is still a belief. Let's not forget here that we are talking about a THEORY, not a fact.

Once again, you are accusing me of the very thing you evolutionists are doing. You continue to call your belief "science", but nobody has yet seen any proof that evolution took place and that any creature was anything else, other than what we see and observe today and what recorded history has shown.

Beyond recorded/observed present/history, we start moving into ... what? The area into "anybody's guess" which is apparently owned by evolutionists who were not there. They do not need to provide any solid evidence, just assumptions. These assumptions of theirs that suit them very well and those like them, so long as it avoids any idea of intelligence/design.

I'm not interested in getting creationism into the science room. I'm just wondering why you find it ok that a belief is being taught in science, simply because its one that suits you. This isn't good enough Linda. Being opposed to the Christian belief still makes no sense to justify evolution in the science room, if it does not provide substantial scientific proof that shows one kind becoming another.

WHy not wipe out both and let the students think for themselves? I keep trying to get this through. What is wrong with teaching science without evolution?

Creation isn't suggested in science. Who is obligated to prove what here? I say to you that I have seen no proof that one kind was ever anything else other than what we have seen and what we see to this day.

Unless evolution finally comes up with a REAL transitional form, (not ongoing hoaxes), the world around me shows life/intellect produces the same and that is what we observe with all living creatures. We see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats. Haven't yet seen any sign of a transitional form. Yet, you are suggesting to me that once upon a time it wasn't always that way without any solid evidence to back this claim up, nor justify why it's being taught as science.

So I have no problem at all that life and intellect creates life. The order we see today has always been throughout history. Beyond that.....anybody's guess but who has a right to have students believe a theory as fact. This is unscientific deception.

If we applied this sort of logic to every subject, children wouldn't even be going to school.

Omitting something as globally prevalent as evolution from the school curriculum is a sure fire way to give the rest of the world an advantage over you (in terms of understanding the various schools of thought - whether they're factual or not isn't the issue here.)

If stating evolution as fact perturbs you, ask to have it stated as theory. But to remove it from one's education altogether? I cringe to think what might be next...

Well I would argue with you but you obviously believe every video posted online with dramatic music and unfounded claims about conspiracies and capitalist monsters
I don't even have to attack the credibility of your claims because your beliefs are too out there with tin foiled hat crazies
And you claim to be a skeptic yet you say you would NEVER EVER believe in evolution. Science is ever evolving and always morphing when new findings are made to gain better understanding of the universe.
Science never says never when attacking a hypothesis, and doesn't even say that there is no possibility of god existing, there is just ZERO EVIDENCE pointing to it.

And as always just because either god exists or he doesn't, it is not a 50/50 probability

Real quick notes.

Linda - How does the whale evidence prove that whales were a different species? The lack of transitional forms is not a "creationist" scheme. Science itself recognizes it and it is why new theories which do not need transitional forms are arising. If you want to argue transitional forms, you can do it with evo and crea alike. Lets start with the whales.

Whale expert (now deceased) E.J. Slijper:‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’

(E.J. Slijper, Dolphins and Whales (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1962), p. 17
Here are some quotes.

Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about 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 … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
(C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), p. 89)

The renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record "
(S.J. Gould, in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John Maynard Smith, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p. 140.)

Darwin recognized this when writing his book. Here is an excerpt
"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory"
(C.R. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413.)


Kriminal - You brought up evidence, I refuted it. I don't remember at any point you asking me for evidence. I simplified my refute for you as well, it can be found above. But here you go. The feather. The feather has never evolved. There are different types, that have different purposes. But flight feathers are amongst the absolute earliest fossil discoveries, ahead of dinosaurs. Perfectly (can I use the word "designed") for flight. This would require that Evolution, a brainless, unconcious, nothing, is responsible for the leap of bacteria to aeronautical perfection, and much closer the primordial soup phase than thought. (Longisquama insignis)Also, since it appears before or at the time of the earliest dinosaurs, apparently birds did not evolve from reptiles (the previous theory)


[b] P.S. Russ, please delete my two long posts, this page is loading super crappy. I apoligize to all.

Bex, I have to agree with Pwcca.

Evolution has a lot of evidence to back it up. Look at the sorts of things you are claiming, e.g. 'you weren't there, how do you know'? By this same logic, we can't know about anything that happened before we were personally there to experience it.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. I think I'm going to end up saying this ad nauseam here, but the evidence is there across many different scientific disciplines. Occasional hoaxes arise yes, but it's very convenient for a creationist to claim that anything that threatens their beliefs is a hoax or can't be proved. I am not going to tell my colleagues to teach this sort of ingorant gobbldygook to children.

Would you like to tell me what evidence evolutionists accpet that you feel "cannot be proved," or what specifically you believe to be a hoax? Let's discuss some concrete examples.

Claythrow

Boy don't creationists ever get hung up on transitional forms. You guys would prevent us from making important discoveries. Instead of looking for transitional forms or examining other hypotheses that might explain why there are some gaps in the fossil record, you would ignore all this because in your books it's all a big lie anyway.

As time goes on and more fossils are discovered, the gaps start to get filled in. All of your sources here are rather old. Let me give you an update on more recent studies and discoveries.

The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is now quite detailed. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.

a. Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).

b. Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).

c. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).

d. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.

e. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).

f. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).

The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).

I'm happy to discuss any of these examples in more detail if you like.

About the feather. Where are you getting your "facts" here, e.g. your claim that it "never evolved," and that feathers for flight appeared ahead of dinosaurs? Which species please? The first feathers are believed to have served the purpose of insulation. What's more, feathers are not necessary for flight. Plenty of other non-feathered flying creatures existed before birds. I'm not sure what your point here is.

Linda, no need to get upset or sarcastic. I'm well aware of the whale bones. A couple points.

1. There is no fossil record of any partially formed species. (Brain, lungs, gills legs etc) The "chain" of whales doesn't prove that they evolved from one another. There are basins of fossil remains in which a couple of the species are present. Both being fully formed and living at the same time. The whale with the small hind legs doesn't mean much to me, the construction of the latter in males and females was different. Which leads me to the conclusion that it was something to do with copulation (an earler proposed theory) If it were not so, there would be no reason for males and females to be different.
No one is stopping you from looking at transitional forms, but saying that this was once that, is speculation. Where do you get the idea I don't want you to find fossils.

I posted the animal with my post above for you to find. Longisquama insignis. My point is that the feather is all too perfect. Scientist previous theory was that reptilian scales evolved into feathers to keep animals warm. But flight feathers preceded this. I also posted the point. Primordial soup to aeronautical perfection in that amount of time is quite a leap. Bones had to "learn" to hollow themselfs out, become less dense, grow fibers that are strong, light and interconnecting. The point is it hasn't evolved. How did that happen?

Disclaimer: I say this as a religious (albiet non-Christian) person.


When the stone monoliths on Easter Island were first discovered, people were unable to explain how exactly they got there using primitive means. So baffled were some people at the time that they drew sweeping conclusions to explain their origin, citing that clearly aliens from another planet came down to assist the natives of the island. Through applied logic man has since proved that ereceting stone monuments of this size can indeed be done with very primitive means. No need for spaceships. No need for mythological fantasy.

Though you may claim that the proposed evolution of the feather is outrageous, I see explaining it away with some all-seeing God who magically points his divine finger as something even more fantastical, more unrealistic. Even a flawed scientific approach, explaining how various lifeforms adapt over time, is more rational than Santa Claus theories.

Hi Claythrow, I'm not upset at all, I like the chance to share info here. And judging from your post you weren't aware of the info I gave here about whales, because all of it is of a more recent date than the scientists you quoted who said that they were wanting to see more transitional forms. Why give those quotes if you were aware of the info I posted above?

Longisquama insignis, well that's an interesting one. It's causing a lot of debate. Again, this is science at its best, looking at new evidence and considering whether current views need to be modified. There are a lot of problems with this though, as I'm sure you are aware. Even a fervent critic of accepted avian origins, Dr. Alan Feduccia, felt after careful study that he could only say, "the exact relationship of longisquama to birds is uncertain."

Another problem is that there is a lack of evolutionary lineage from longisquama. Also, according to several paleontologists, the 'feathers' on longisquama may simply be folds of skin, likely used for gliding. Others claim that the 'feathers' are acutally ferns fossilized along with the Longisquama skeleton. Still others say that the 'feathers' are simply skin flaps like those seen on moths. In fact, two of North America's most renowned paleontologists, Dr. Chris Brochu of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and Dr. Hans Dieter Sues of the Royal Ontario Museum have studied the specimen and believe that the appendages are absolutely not feathers, or nothing even close to them.

Even if longisquama did possess feathers, Dr. Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History reasons, that doesn't mean that longisquama is an evolutionary ancestor to modern birds. Norell points out that the feathered dinosaurs of China actually lived after the first true birds developed. In other words, possibly these 'feathers' on longisquama evolved independently of the avian lineage for other reasons, possibly for insulation or sexual display.

My personal feelings are that the discovery of more fossils of this species, in better condition, will shed light on this.

While I find this debate interesting, I do not see how it has anything to do with proving that evolution is wrong and creationism is right. Scientists looking at available and emerging evidence, and debating about it, is not quite the same as a massive blow being dealt to the whole idea of evolution. The creationist approach seems to be to search for something that would prove to be this "massive blow," and thinking that any area of uncertainty might fit that category.

Primordial soup to flying creatures in a few billion years? This is the same "argument of incredulity" that Russ presented earlier. I explained this in my post to him, as well as how genetic variation and natural selection are not pure chance. I'm sorry if this seems incredible, I guess that's up to you to come to terms with for yourself. Study evolution a little more, rather than just the twisted facts and idiot statements creationist "leaders" make, and maybe you'll lose some of it.

Can you explain what you mean by partially formed species? I take it you are meaning something different than transitional forms?

A parent and daughter species both being present at the same time is not proof that evolution is wrong. The parent species does not always become extinct; or if it does, it very often won't happen straight away.

The small hind legs of the whale, it seems logical to conclude, were vestigial; and their remaining functions were slightly different for males and females. You say that if they were not used in copulation then there would have been no reason for them. Well maybe they were used in copulation, or for something else. Try using your imagination. Just because you personally can't think of any other use for them doesn't mean there wasn't one.

You can look at any two transitional forms and say there's no proof that "this turned into that" because you want to see more forms in between. We are finding more transitional forms all the time. The fossil record is incomplete. And sometimes species seem to make small leaps in their evolution, though there is debate about this, and each instance obviously needs close individual study. Sayins "this could not have evolved into that" when there is good evidence for it, is simply evidence of a closed mind that does not want to accept the idea of evolution full stop. With this mindset it is unlikely you will ever be satisfied with the evidence that is presented to you.

Are you saying you really want more fossil evidence then? Creationists seem to want to "explain it away" (using Russ' terminology) whenever there is new evidence for some facet of evolution. I would have thought they had no interest in making new discoveries of this kind. If you are convinced that evolution is hokum and that there are no true transitional forms, why go looking for them?

Claythrow

Show me

Well since you can copy paste huge spams of information I can do the same thing (at least mine have references and are not sketchy arguments by reverends)

Bob Bales has been using the feather as an example of something apparently designed, and thus lending support to his position of creation. In my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. Bob prompted me to investigate the feather issue, and I would like to share what I found.

For those of you not familiar with the terminology, a passage from Miller and Harley 1992 (references at end of article):

Contour feathers consist of a vane with its inner and outer webs, and a supportive shaft. Feather barbs branch off the shaft, and barbules branch off the barbs. Barbules of adjacent barbs overlap one another. The ends of barbules are locked together with hooklike hamuli. Interlocking barbs keep contour feathers firm and smooth.

In trying to understand this, I came up with an analogy: a weeping willow tree limb. The limb is the shaft, branches are the barbs, and leaves the barbules. If the leaves had hooks on the ends/sides, these would be the hamuli. When the feather is arranged normally (i.e. not mussed) the hamuli would be hooked from the tips of the leaves on one branch to the petioles of the leaves on the adjacent branch. Okay, got it?

[Note: The terminology is actually much more complex than I imagined. One line in the 55-page Spearman and Hardy (1985) chapter entitled "Integument" reads, "There are seven basic types of feather: contour feather, semiplume, down feather, powder down feather, hypopenna, filoplume and bristle." Seven basic types? Yipe! As far as I can tell, the interlocking mechanism is only found on contour feathers, i.e. those covering the body, wings, and tail.]

To get a look at the diagram in Miller and Harley, check out the newsgroup alt.binaries.pictures.misc, picture "feather1.gif". I scanned it in from the book. Most of the barbules have more than one hamulus, a forked one at the tip of the barbule and several more down the length of the barbule. An actual electron micrograph of a murre feather is shown in "feather2.gif" (from Spearman and Hardy 1985). Pay special attention to the barb on the right- see how its barbules/hamuli have a fairly large curve diameter? The caption of this picture (you can read part of it) says, "Fig. 1.26. Scanning electron micrograph of a contour feather of a Common Murre (Uria aalge) showing the hooked distal barbules interlocking with the grooved proximal barbules. x2000. Reproduced by courtesy of Dr. J. V. Beer." A better view of the interlocking mechanism is shown in "feather3.gif", the caption of which reads, "Fig. 1.24. Portions of two barbs from the pennaceous part of the vane of a chicken remix showing the interlocking of proximal and distal barbules. From Lucas and Stettenheim (1972)." [I don't know what remix means -- maybe the preparation?] This one is also from Spearman and Hardy. Note that the grooved proximal barbules are quite deeply grooved. If anyone has trouble getting these images, email me and I'll send them to you direct! I'll leave them on my account for 3 weeks.

Now, this background information should convince everyone that there is an interlocking mechanism, hooks on one part and grooves on another. However, I submit that having two interlocking parts in no way damages evolutionary theory, and in fact gives evidence to strengthen it.

Paul Keck's recounting of How the interlocking mechanism on feathers probably developed:

In past times, feathers were probably first used as insulation, much like hair in mammals, and were probably hair-shaped, as some of those other types of feathers mentioned above still are. At some point, some of the proto-birds developed branching projections from the early feathers. These were better at insulating, and so natural selection favored those animals that possessed them.

The next step was probably selection for barbules which curled at the ends, hooking the barbules into the adjacent ones and thus making a better wind-shedding surface, like a windbreaker. (The underfeathers would make better insulators by staying fluffy and unhooked, so the downy type of feather would be retained.) At this point the barbules were probably still pretty much round in cross-section, with no grooves. Since the limited interlocking mechanism was an improvement over non-interlocked feathers, there would be a competitive advantage to having the hooks.

So, now we have hamuli hooked around barbule "petioles". Now go back to one of Darwin's assumptions that I've been pretty much taking for granted so far- variation. Some of these proto-birds had "petioles" slightly oval, or squarish, or crescent-shaped, as opposed to round. Please stress the "slightly" there! Now, one of these shapes was better than the others at holding the interlocking mechanism together (another idea of Darwin's). So, that proto-bird's offspring would survive better than offspring of the others, and so eventually replace them.

Fast forward a couple of hundred million years of the same variation, mutation, and selection, and you end up with modern bird feathers. Simple, no? Just time-consuming. The groove and hook did not evolve separately, as has been contended, but one in response to the other. The hooks were not useless without the grooves, they just work better with the grooves. You find this same pattern all through the living world. Eyes are another example.

I'll now say a few unresearched things about eyes. A common creationist claim about eyes follows the Feather Attack Mode (tm): "All those parts are useless without the others! See? They were created simultaneously!" Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Ask a Chlamydomonas algal cell, or a Euglena. They won't answer, but you can observe a very primitive eyespot on these cells. All it does is sense light. These algae have flagellae, so they can swim toward light if they get swept under a rock or water lily, e.g. This eye is intracellular, and basically spherical. A planarian (flatworm) has a cup-shaped depression lined with pigmented cells. This is equivalent to our retina. A nautilus is much the same, with its eye being likened to a pinhole camera (no lens or cornea, but almost spherical). Squids have an eye that adds a cornea and a spherical, rigid lens, much like fishes, and extrinsic eye muscles. Mammals have a soft, pliable lens for focusing. Birds have this and also double foveae, giving birds TWO "centers of concentration", i.e., they can "look right at" two things at once! So, these things don't need to be created all at once, and the "incomplete" eyes of lesser animals (i.e. not birds or squid) work fine. They allow creationists to read their Bibles, even though a bird could read and keep an eye on the kids at the same time.

So, you folks who think things that work well together had to be created together, I say: Nope! Try some other argument against evolution.

[Send for the pictures if you don't find them! I don't want anyone to have an excuse!]

References
Miller, S.A. and J.P. Harley. 1992. Zoology. Wm. C. Brown Pub., Dubuque, IA [a general zoology text I had lying around the house.. free sample <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />]

Spearman, R.I.C and J.A. Hardy. 1985. Integument. In: Form and function in birds. Vol. 3. (A.S. King and J. McClelland, eds.) Academic Press, London. [part of at least a 4-volume set, written by veterinarians and anatomists]

"Evidence" for ID?

I was going to say this is a good idea Kriminal, but on second thought I don't think it is. Do you know what we'll hear? No facts whatsoever, just the worn-out platitudes we've been getting already. Prophecies . . .we are too incredulous to believe . . . we don't want to accept any evidence as real or proven . . . we know the secrets of the Bible and you don't. I think we've heard it many times over already.

Facts are really all I am interested in here. I want people to give me what they believe are facts, and we can talk about those.

Linda, you stated - " Evolution has a lot of evidence to back it up. Look at the sorts of things you are claiming, e.g. 'you weren't there, how do you know'? By this same logic, we can't know about anything that happened before we were personally there to experience it."

In other words, you find it "logical" for people to tell us what happened who have no idea if it did or not and cannot even study those who 'were". And that to you is logical? To me that is unscientific and presumptuous.

Beyond recorded history (oral history) and present observations, we are basing everything on assumptions and that is fine if one wishes to toss ideas around, but to teach it as science? Makes no sense, it is not scientific at all.

Your statements and PWCCA's of "Cringing" at the idea of evolution not being taught is an example of indoctrination. That you actually have reached such a point that you are ready to accept assumptions as fact. The ongoing exclaimations of "it's a fact, it's a fact", make no sense in the light "it's a theory, it's a theory".

Linda, we do not even need hoaxes to describe the evolution agenda. We only have to point out the absence of solid facts/missing links.

Evolutionists accept that we have evolved from primitive creatures (ape like) - yet so far there have been no solid evidence for this at all. What we observe today and of the past is that humans have always been humans. Yet we are told this was not always so.....and once again it's the "once upon a time" story.

I have no problem accepting that humans have always been humans because this is what history (recorded history) has proven. In the absence of evidence to show me otherwise, why is it required of students to believe what is told to them by people who were not only not their themselves, but cannot even refer to someone that was?

micro evolution is fine, but it is a misleading term because the evolutionists have REALLY given "evolution" a bad name. Micro evolution is observable because it's simply variation within a kind. But none of these changes happen on their own without two FULLY functioning creatures (not half formed). But notice none of them actually evolve into another kind? They simply reproduce after their own kind. These things we observe and can observe from past evidence from pictures or fossil findings, oral/recorded history. No story telling required, they speak for themselves.

Linda if evolution was a solid fact, there would be no arguments because it would be like me arguing that there is a sun in the sky. Evolution can be challenged and argued because the idea is just that "an idea".

Unfortunately students dont tend to accept that because they are indoctrinated to believe it's a scientific fact, even with the absence of evidence.

That is what we see and what history dictates. The land before time is the evolution playground and has nothing at all to do with anything that can be observed or tested. That is unscientific.