DarioDelajesus posted on May 22, 2007
| views: 531
1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe: Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order. 2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life: Dirt + water + time = living creatures. Evolutionists theorize that the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself—with the exception of man-made things, such as automobiles or buildings. Complicated things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need raw materials to begin with. They make themselves too.
**Note-Although stated simply this is a good starting point for evolutionist to prove their theory. Mainly by accurate identification of the exact elements and forces that began this process. Theortically if they can do this --they too can create life..by re-creating the elements and conditions. I do believe it is the serious goal of evolutionist to spontaneously bring life into being from elements. The motive being to solve the problem of death.
Second Law of Thermodynamics (1850). R.J.E. Clausius stated the law of entropy: All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized (*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 1968, p. 201). In other words, everything runs down, wears out, and goes to pieces (*R.R. Kindsay, "Physics: to What Extent is it Deterministic," American Scientist 56, 1968, p. 100). This law totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex. *Einstein said the two laws were the most enduring laws he knew of (*Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, 1980, p. 6).
***Note. The fact of Death is actually one of the biggest adversaries to "evolutionary theory."
The dissolution of human and organic forms confirms enthropy. Which means matter disentigrates into more simplistic forms and does not evolute into more enduring and complex forms.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a creationist who lived and worked near Brunn (now Brno), Czechoslovakia. He was a science and math teacher. Unlike the theorists, Mendel was a true scientist. He bred garden peas and studied the results of crossing various varieties. Beginning his work in 1856, he concluded it within eight years. In 1865, he reported his research in the Journal of the Brunn Society for the Study of Natural Science. The journal was distributed to 120 libraries in Europe, England, and America. Yet his research was totally ignored by the scientific community until it was rediscovered in 1900 (*R.A. Fisher, "Has Mendel’s Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1936). His experiments clearly showed that one species could not transmute into another one. A genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. Mendel’s work laid the basis for modern genetics, and his discoveries effectively destroyed the basis for species evolution (*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64).
August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) was a German biologist who disproved *Lamarck’s notion of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." He is primarily remembered as the scientist who cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. Weismann also carried out other experiments that buttressed his refutation of Lamarckism. His discoveries, along with the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin, doomed the theory (*Jean Rostand, Orion Book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Yet Lamarckism continues today as the disguised basis of evolutionary biology. For example, evolutionists still teach that giraffes kept stretching their necks to reach higher branches, so their necks became longer! In a later book, *Darwin abandoned natural selection as unworkable, and returned to Lamarckism as the cause of the never-observed change from one species to another (*Randall Hedtke, The Secret of the Sixth Edition, 1984).
NOTE**** I do believe we have every right to both question and tear apart every premise of evolutionary theory. I believe as scientist the moral imperitave is there to treat evolution no different than any other scientific hypothesis. The blind acceptance of this theory is incredible.By Darwin himself we are given the authority and right to question.
"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed., Vol. 11). "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
Comments
-
thenack said on May 23, 2007....
Wow, what a nice short summary of why evolution should be reconsidered, again!Very nice post, I have nothing to add here! -
Antimatter said on May 23, 2007....
Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory starts with the first replicating molecules. The origin of the elements, planets, and favorable conditions on Earth are entirely different domains of scientific inquiry, and should be treated as such.
Biological evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics any more than a growing human baby.
-
thenack said on May 24, 2007....
Antimatter, seems you didn't read all of the post? As usual with evolutionists, you have to steer the argument away from the problem, because you have no real answers. Besides, you are wrong, evolution has to start with the magical moment where dead matter started to form the first incredibly intricate living cell. Or granted, a self replicating molecule, but the first one ever to create itself from dead chemicals. Then a bunch of chemicals had to learn to work together, without guidance or inteligence, to form a cell. Humans can't even do that, how do ou expect chemicals did it?The second law of TD is not entirely applicable, but it is pretty much the same thing. If you chuck dirt in a bowl, it doesn't become a brick building, even given a gazzilion years, order requires inteligence+information. Its the same law, different application. Stop dancing around the problem and come to the party. Or perhaps your faith in evolution is strong enough for you to believe that things can make themselves? There is more proof here that evolution is a religion, than you disproving anything in the statement above. -
Antimatter said on May 24, 2007....
You’ll never get a serious response from an evolutionist with comments like those. You accuse me of not reading your post, of a red herring argument, and of “believing” in evolution as though it were some religion. Ironically, you also accuse me of not understanding my own position.
Again, let me point out that the Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about how life began. The process of natural selection only acts on replicating organisms that can pass traits. The origin of replicating molecules is an interesting problem for naturalism but is strictly outside the scope of evolution.
Then again, you probably aren’t looking for a serious response. Your pot of dirt analogy is ridiculous and reflects only your complete misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. You probably only want to upset me so you can further your absurd notion that a scientific theory is a religion.
-
thenack said on May 24, 2007....
You are mislead, evolution = natural sellection? this is not true and not even Darwin saw it this way.Perhaps you should define your own definition of evolution first, because you'll keep on dancing around, shifting definitions as we go along.I say natural sellection is the chages environment has on existing genetic information by basic " survival of the fittest"Evolution is dinosaurs growing feathers and becoming birds, or even more incredible, blind blobs of living protein being lucky enough to develope light sensiteve patches on their skin that "evolve" into eyes by some incredible stroke of luck.Evolution requires gazilions of years and death to produce its apparantly well designed results, God sayd he created everything good and without sin or death, Mans sin caused death. So God could not use evolution (which requires death) to create, because then Man wasn't responsible for sin.Before we continue, please give a straight answer to something I said.You just talk, define a scientific theory, I have, define evolution, I have, all you have done is make assumptions and unbacked statements on what, you say, evolution is. I have disagreed with your statements, but with reasons, you have done nothing but atacking me personally, -
Antimatter said on May 24, 2007....
Okay, we can play your game. A scientific theory is a mathematical or logical explanation for natural phenomenon. A theory may always be used to predict future observations, and is verified or falsified based on the success of those predictions. Evolution is simply descent with modification — the changes in a population’s inherited traits from generation to generation. It is true that natural selection only forms one part of the Theory of Evolution; Darwin could not explain how traits were passed from one generation to the next. This problem was solved in the 1930s to form modern evolutionary theory.
Unless you care to argue that the earth is only a few days older than humanity and all of geological and cosmic history is carefully crafted illusion, the notion that there was no death before humanity is difficult to support in light of the fossil record.
-
thenack said on May 25, 2007....
Evolution requires uphill DNA change, this has and will never be observed. Traits are not passed on and it has been proven not possible, give your source, don't just make a statement.Geology proves the earth is not millions of years old, as for cosmology, time is relative, anything is possible. Don't be blinded by the current bigbang nonsense, it too will pass and we will ahve another inadequote theory in its place. -
thenack said on May 25, 2007....
On the fossil record, where are all the billions of years woth of fossils, we should have been in 6feet of bones,why is everything burried in quickly deposited sand. Why do we get fossilised trees, vertically running through aleged millions of years worth of sediments.why is there carbon 14 in diamonds that are millions of years old,why do we find T-rex bones with hemoglobin and soft tissuewhy don't any radiometric dating methds give the same dates,they found planes from the second world war under alleged 20 000 years worth of ice-cores in greenlandthe oldest tree is almost 4000 years oldsame goes (on average theories for civilisations)there are still comets, 5000years from now there wont be,why does earth still have such a strong, but decaying rapidly, magnetic fieldthe moon is moving away from earth, real science prdicts therefore that the maximum date for earth history is ony a few 100 000 years, where was the moon 100 mil ago?I could go on all day, you could give bogus "theories" on how any of these "could be possible", but stand back and for one second really think outside of the coffinby the way, that is probably the most used phrase in evolution "scientist say that X and Y may have been....blah blah blahand then 4 years and a million dollars later they find, oh well we were wrong, but you don't see that part in National Geographic. -
Antimatter said on May 25, 2007....
Perhaps you’d like to define what an “uphill change” in DNA might look like. Evolution in fact does not require it.
And speaking of not citing any sources, that’s quite a list of statements you have there. I have never heard a few of those, and I don’t have time to research them at the moment. The others are pretty old and well-refuted arguments:
- Not every bone in history gets fossilized. In fact, fossilization is quite rare. Most bones turn to dust.
- I’ve seen explanations for those fossilized trees, most involving a volcanic eruption near a lake, but I’d need a more specific example.
- All the radiometric dating methods (that are used appropriately for the isotope's half life) give the same dates.
- Recorded Chinese history goes back 10 thousand years.
- Earth’s magnetic field is not fixed. The current theory based on geological evidence is that the field oscillates.
-
DarioDelajesus said on May 25, 2007....
Again, let me point out that the Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about how life began.
The evolution of life from its beginning through the development of the metazoa (primitive multicellular organisms) took billions of years. The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection began.
For a comprehensive study of early evolution University of Arizona.
A microbe-like cellular filament found in 3.465 billion year old rock
Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.
Living things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously:
University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation
Darwin believed all the life on Earth developed gradually over millions of years from a few common ancestors. In his autobiography he recalled that at the time of writing the Origin of Species the conclusion was strong in his mind of the existence of God due to "the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."[1] He would later retreat from this position.
Darwin, Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Michael Joseph, the Penguin Group, London 1991 ISBN 0-7181-3430-3
PHOENIX, May 23 (UPI) -- A U.S. research team reports succeeding in evolving several new proteins in a fraction of the 3-billion-year period it took nature to do the same.
An Arizona State University Biodesign Institute research team, led by John Chaput, used a molecular biology process they call "synthetic evolution" to produce proteins that have never existed in nature.
Again I will state: the key to understanding the hidden agenda and scientific smokescreen of evolution theory is that their final goal is Creation. It is a preparation of the mind of man for the supposedly first man created species. These god-dreams of man date back centuries and culminated in Hitler's use of Jews for bizarre experiments to produce the super-race by genetic manipulation. This may seem like the highest science fiction (it is meant to) but consider the current hot-spots of research: Cloning, Brain stem usage from embyo's, and genetic alteration. While studying genetics at the University of Tennessee I was told arms and legs had already been reproduced from cells. All that was needed was to find the equation that would put life in then. The forces behind this "Frankenstien" science delight in the arguments of Creationism versus Evolution because it keeps most confused. If you will consider the implications of man's ability to create duplicates and autonomous living creatures it is catastrophic. Whether they truly accomplish it or not-it is my "theory" that just like" dolly " the first cloned sheep, this man creation will appear and Science will -
Antimatter said on May 26, 2007....
Yes, that’s right. The evolutionary biologists are all involved in a worldwide conspiracy to suppress Christianity, keep the public confused, and create a new species as an insult to God.
...where do you get this stuff?
Scientists and the media do like to use the term “evolution” in many confusing contexts. It doesn’t imply a relationship to the Theory of Evolution, which only acts on self-replicating organisms that can pass traits from one generation to the next. Primordial proteins cannot evolve by natural selection unless they're being replicated.
-
kelly said on May 28, 2007....
Nice comments, Antimatter. You have a talent for keeping your head in the face of incredibly obtuse arguments.My larger question to thenack is what do you have against scientific method? Obviously you're hostile to it since you counter scientific observation with urban legend and pop culture "facts." -
Antimatter said on May 29, 2007....
Thank you, Kelly. Honestly, I try to keep calm because I know I was once making arguments exactly like theirs.
Comment on "Just the facts please!"
Related Posts:
curmudgeon
posted 2 days ago
| views: 69
|
Science and propaganda merge in global warming "debate."... read entire post
stopmediabias
posted 4 days ago
| views: 33
|
Kennedy get banned from communion for his stance on abortion...... read entire post