Evolution

We have enough important things to discuss in the world and certainly trying to disprove evolution shouldn’t be one of them. According to this article three of ten republican presidential candidates don’t believe in evolution and it is obvious our president doesn’t either.
 
This has to be some kind of joke. It is apparent these people know nothing of science or have been sheltered to the point where they have never stepped into a museum.
 
To make matters worse, a new museum just opened in Kentucky which will show dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark and will explain the Grand Canyon was not created through millions of years of erosion but rather 6,000.
 
Topping it off, the museum cost 27 million brainwashing dollars to construct.
 
At the least the name of the building is “Creation Museum” which should ward off those people who are really looking for a museum based on science.
 
Then again, I may want to take a flight down to the Creation Museum myself to see just how big Noah’s Ark was. I don’t even think we have any ships big enough today to hold every species of dinosaur.
 
The whole issue of creation versus evolution is scary because it shows the ultra-religious (regardless of religion) have decided that logic can be disregarded at will. Once you get used to ignoring logic, reason and especially facts, society should be questioning your competency.

  • Linda Parsons
    May 29, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Just when it appeared that God may have delayed his response to evolutionists, enter THE QUEST FOR RIGHT, a masterful work on creationism.
    The great gulf of ambiguity that once separated Intelligent Design from legitimate scientific discourse has been abolished. It is a fact: The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between forces advocating creationism and those promoting evolution.
    The Lord has heard the cries of His people and responded with a scientific resource on creationism that will stop these onslaughts against Christianity. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena that will ultimately replace the Darwinian view.
    For example, the investigation dismantles the hocus pocus responsible for the various absolute radioisometric dating techniques by which rocks and other materials are supposedly dated. Absolute-“perfect, complete, definite; without a prospect of being incorrect.” On these incalculable formulae— and they are incalculable—rest the science council’s claim that the earth is of great age, accreting some 4.6 billion years B.C. Upon publication of The Quest for Right, the council’s choice of the superlative absolute will be assessed to be a scurrilous invective, an “abusive, offensive, even vulgar, connotation.” After all, who would question an absolute? It is a matter of record that these dating systems are the tools by which evolutionists have attempted to rip apart the validity of historical documentations, specifically, that the account of creation as recorded in the Bible is mythology. The Quest for Right has changed all of that: the scientific record of creation has stood undaunted against these attacks and has proven to be an invaluable asset to the in-depth investigation.
    The first three volumes of the seven volume set will be published early fall ’07. The Quest for Right is all new from the get-go and is destined to make headlines that will reverberate within the halls of academia throughout the world. Coming soon to bookstores and online merchants such as Amazon.com, Barnes and Nobel.com, Walmart.com and questforright.com. Author, C. David Parsons, biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare.

  • A.Layman
    May 30, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    The proponants of the lie of evolution never cease to amaze me. How can any, so called thinking person, believe such a ridiculous idea as the theory of evolution. The fact is that the Genesis account of creation is 100% trustworthy, and it all did, in fact, occur about 6000 years ago. Man and dinosaur were created on the same day of creation; the sixth, and lived in perfect harmony until man sinned. The rest, as they say, is history.

  • James Collins
    June 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell.
    After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.
    If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
    Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
    Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
    Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

  • A. Layman
    June 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
    by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
    According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the “good” mutations and allows the others to pass away.
    Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
    For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily “mutate” (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates “downward,” then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
    Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such “mutations,” each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
    But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be “one” followed by sixty “zeros.” In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular “parts.”
    The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth’s 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
    All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
    Discussion
    There have been many other ways in which creationist writers have used probability arguments to refute evolutionism, especially the idea of random changes preserved, if beneficial, by natural selection. James Coppedge devoted almost an entire book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Zondervan, 1973, 276 pp.), to this type of approach. I have also used other probability-type arguments to the same end (see, e.g., Science and Creation, Master Books, pp. 161-201).
    The first such book, so far as I know, to use mathematics and probability in refuting evolution was written by a pastor, W. A. Williams, way back in 1928. Entitled, Evolution Disproved, it made a great impression on me when I first read it about 1943, at a time when I myself was still struggling with evolution.
    In fact, evolutionists themselves have attacked traditional Darwinism on the same basis (see the Wistar Institute Symposium, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, 1967, 140 pp.). While these scientists did not reject evolution itself, they did insist that the Darwinian randomness postulate would never work.
    Furthermore, since the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, is essentially a statement of probabilities, many writers have also used that law itself to show that evolution on any significant scale is essentially impossible. Evolutionists have usually ignored the arguments or else used vacuous arguments against them (“Anything can happen given enough time”; “The earth is an open system, so the second law doesn’t apply”; “Order can arise out of chaos through dissipative structures”; etc.).
    In the real world of scientific observation, as opposed to metaphysical speculation, however, no more complex system can ever “evolve” out of a less complex system, so the probability of the naturalistic origin of even the simplest imaginary form of life is zero.
    The existence of complexity of any kind is evidence of God and creation. “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for that He is strong in power; not one faileth” (Isaiah 40:26).

  • Martyn Davies
    June 3, 2007 at 8:46 am

    Of course it’s not just evolution. The fundamentalists put themselves in a position of disproving every field of science, including palaentology, cosmology and geology. Even the most ardent advocates of creationism find themselves overstretched in trying to disprove so many things at the same time. To be honest, I think they’d be better off accepting that evolution exists, and then just say “God decided that creatures should evolve”. Then it just becomes a question of faith that people should decide upon individual basis. The current strategy, trying to prove that “all science is bunk” is unsustainable and just makes America all the weaker.

  • Richard Tehrani
    June 3, 2007 at 10:18 am

    I like this idea — that God decided evolution should exist. That would help explain a great deal and make the situation less ridiculous.
    In fact this is not so much different from the saying “God helps those who help themselves.”
    We could combine them… “God helps species that help themselves.” Problem solved. 🙂

  • A. Layman
    June 11, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    Creationists don’t dispute good science, but evolution isn’t good science. In fact, it isn’t even science. It’s more closely related to science fiction.
    Consider that there is not one shred of support for the theory of evolution. Nothing. Consider that of all the millions of fossils around the world, at all elevations, which, incidentally, supports the Genesis account of a universal flood about 3500 years ago, there isn’t one fossil of a so-called transitional life form. Not even one. How odd. Interesting that the fossil record has proven to be an embarrassment for the evolutionists. So much so that they were forced to develop other theories to explain the abscence of “transitional fossils,” of which punctuated equilibria is one of the most bizzarre.
    Evolution isn’t science. It’s a religion, and a foolish one at that. God wins again. The harder the the evolutionsist try to disprove the word of God (The Bible), the more they prove the Bible to be true. “Professing themselves wise, they became as fools.” Amen 🙂

Leave Your Comment


 

Loading
Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap