A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

[David Evarts]

There are three challenges here. The second one is is exponentially more difficult than the first and the third even more so. The rewards start big and also increase exponentially. To the best of my knowledge, no anti-evolutionists have really given these a serious college try, though scientists are constantly trying. You've got competition. If you accomplish any fraction of any of these your anti-evolutionary peers will reward you richly and you will make many converts. If you can supply positive results you will be amply rewarded by sicentists of all faiths.

1.) Provide a testable hypothesis that calls into question descent with
modification from common ancestors. (The theory of evolution)

The reward for meeting this challenge is scientific fame and job offers. If you carry out the test, even without positive results, your fame and fortune will grow. If you have positive results you will likely receive publication in Nature or Science, the flagship science journals. It's a bit like a musician appearing on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. You are also going to receive job offers, acclaim and essentially rock stardom. Scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, have made entire careers out of attempting this with no positive results or subtly (but without luck) trying to nudge the picture of evolutionary
gradualism.

2.) Provide a replacement hypothesis for the theory of evolution that explains current observations and makes predictions or even a single prediction for future discoveries or tests with positive results.(or even some part of current bservations, especially the observed age of the earth. Note the age of the earth is not itself a part of the theory of evolution, but an old earth is predicted by the theory of evolution.)

This one is a big order and your competition is stiff. Darwins' hypothesis and the subsequent modifications (such as the modern synthesis) have currectly explained and predicted so many observations, discoveries and positive tests that this is your biggest competitor. The field is filled with competitors. Although he failed to make any correct predictions or explain many phenomena and has been thouroughly debunked on geological and other levels(as well as having been shown to be unbiblical) Morris's revival of a long dead timeline from the 7th Day Adventists in "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Implications" gained him acclaim and
sold very well. Biologists of all types are seeking this prize. The reward for
providing even a partial replacement or modification for the theory of evolution the yeilds positive results is undying fame. Slight modifications will causeyour name and hypothesis to be learned by every freshman biology student. Areplacement would eclipse Darwin and launch you into the type of undying fame of Einstein.

3.) Do #2, while providing a hypothesis that honors the Christian God as well as or better than the theory of evolution or alternatively satisfies todays religious anti-evolutionists.

In either of these cases, you would attain not only the top peir of scientific stardom and rewards, but would also eclipse Origen, Augustine, Luther andpossibly even Paul as the preeminent theologian and church leader. I would most probably become your follower as would essentially all Christians working in science and a host of thers.

Go forth! And, good luck.

 

[Verticordious]

There are three challenges here. The second one is is exponentially more difficult than the first and the third even more so. The rewards start big and also increase exponentially. To the best of my knowledge, no anti-evolutionists have really given these a serious college try, though scientists are constantly trying. You've got competition. If you accomplish any fraction of any of these your anti-evolutionary peers will reward you richly and you will make many converts. If you can supply positive results you will be amply rewarded by sicentists of all faiths.

The overwhelming majority of people who reject God do so because of moral issues, not intellectual. They care about themselves more than anyone else, and thus do not wish to follow Gods rules. You are deluding yourself if you think proving the existence of God is going to magically convert people in any significant amount. It might cause people to believe in a god, but they'll still be picking their beliefs based upon the morals they wish to live by, rather than accept the morals God has given us.

1.) Provide a testable hypothesis that calls into question descent with
modification from common ancestors. (The theory of evolution)

The reward for meeting this challenge is scientific fame and job offers. If you carry out the test, even without positive results, your fame and fortune will grow. If you have positive results you will likely receive publication in Nature or Science, the flagship science journals. It's a bit like a musician appearing on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. You are also going to receive job offers, acclaim and essentially rock stardom. Scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, have made entire careers out of attempting this with no positive results or subtly (but without luck) trying to nudge the picture of evolutionary
gradualism.

Proof that common decent is false has been around since they beginning of humanity. Information cannot be created through random processes because language is an arbitrary convention and laws of physics are incapable of making arbitrary decision. If I were to make up my own language but not tell anyone about it, then it would be impossible to for anyone other than me to know it's meaning because it's completely arbitrary. Studying the laws of physics would not help you decipher my language one bit, because laws of physics have nothing to do with arbitrary decisions.

These characters I'm typing only have meaning because we agree on the meaning. If you did not know English these symbols would be completely meaningless and unintelligible to you because there would be no agreement between us on their meaning. Language requires an agreement on a symbol convention between a sender and a receiver. So if God is not the one who created life, then where did the genetic code come from?

Information is created from the top down, not the bottom up. First you get an idea in your head, then you translate that idea into our agreed convention of English with all the proper grammar and syntax, then you type it out on your computer. If you try typing without thinking about anything all you will get is gibberish. A conscious thinking intelligence is required to create information.

As you should well know, proving a negative cannot be done. The best we can do is say that all related research refutes the idea that language increases naturally, and thus common decent is also refuted. There is zero evidence that language can occur or develop naturally. The recent advent of computers language has brought about the formalized study of language, and all languages that we know the origin of were created by man by the making of arbitrary decisions to establish a symbol convention. Does this prove it is impossible for common decent to be true? No, however I submit that you have zero evidence to suggest that the creation of language through natural processes is possible, while I have an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is not, and thus your claim is nothing more than a philosophical belief.

2.) Provide a replacement hypothesis for the theory of evolution that explains current observations and makes predictions or even a single prediction for future discoveries or tests with positive results.(or even some part of current bservations, especially the observed age of the earth. Note the age of the earth is not itself a part of the theory of evolution, but an old earth is predicted by the theory of evolution.)

This one is a big order and your competition is stiff. Darwins' hypothesis and the subsequent modifications (such as the modern synthesis) have currectly explained and predicted so many observations, discoveries and positive tests that this is your biggest competitor. The field is filled with competitors. Although he failed to make any correct predictions or explain many phenomena and has been thouroughly debunked on geological and other levels(as well as having been shown to be unbiblical) Morris's revival of a long dead timeline from the 7th Day Adventists in "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Implications" gained him acclaim and
sold very well. Biologists of all types are seeking this prize. The reward for
providing even a partial replacement or modification for the theory of evolution the yeilds positive results is undying fame. Slight modifications will causeyour name and hypothesis to be learned by every freshman biology student. Areplacement would eclipse Darwin and launch you into the type of undying fame of Einstein.

Could you give a better example of what you are looking for? The Earth would be required to be old for common decent to be true, but other than being a requirement the age of the Earth has nothing to with common decent. "Old" isn't very specific anyway, its not like common decent allows a calculated of the age of the Earth, only a very non-specific "old". Using the age of the Earth as an example doesn't explain what exactly you're talking about.

3.) Do #2, while providing a hypothesis that honors the Christian God as well as or better than the theory of evolution or alternatively satisfies todays religious anti-evolutionists.

In either of these cases, you would attain not only the top peir of scientific stardom and rewards, but would also eclipse Origen, Augustine, Luther andpossibly even Paul as the preeminent theologian and church leader. I would most probably become your follower as would essentially all Christians working in science and a host of thers.

Research on DNA's capabilities has shown it to be like an operating system, with features like process management, data storage, redundancy, and error correction. Studies done all the way back in the 1940s by Barbra McClintock have shown that DNA will rewrite itself if you damage one of it's chromosomes. More recent experiments have shown that DNA of e. coli can splice itself into 100,000 different pieces, then recompile itself resulting in it being able to metabolize a completely different food source. This is an experiment that has been observed repeatedly by placing the e. coli in environment that lacks it traditional food source. Rewriting code on the fly is not random, that's engineered.

The whole idea of evolution being random is completely absurd. Random means there was no plan behind it, and the Bible clearly indicates that God had already planned out major events, such as the coming of Christ, before he even created the universe. It does matter how smart and power you are you still have to plan for something in order to be certain it happens. You can't leave something up to random chance, especially random chance that allegedly takes billions of years, and expect to get the outcome you desire.

Evolution, to whatever extent it occurs, is most definitely planned, or as I like to call it, engineered. If you don't plan for something, but it happens anyway, that's not skill or intelligence, that's just luck. God being the designer of the most sophisticated and versatile software suite in the universe is far more impressive than a God who just got lucky in a cosmic lottery.

 

[David Evarts]

Verticordius -After a cursory reading of your post, I've noted a number of unsupported assertions and assumptions, as well as some correct information with unsupportable conclusions. I'm going to take some time to fully consider and answer your assertions and will respond to them later. Truth-seeking demands no less than careful and thoughtful work. (Also, sometimes the day job gets in the way of other pursuits. )

Congratulation, your thoughts on physics and computer science do contain the first new assertion from an anti-evolutionist that I've heard in a while. Apearantly anti-evolutions do evolve too (using the popular and incoorect defintion), but very gradually.

You've got quite a mix of fields here, some that I am very familiar with and some that I am less familiar with, but appear at even an inexpert first glance to be handled cavalierly. I am learning more about anti-evolutionists. It appears that rather than attempt to build a hypothesis on reliable observation, hopefully one that can be tested and can make predictions, anti-evolutionists confine themselves to making assertions that they can not support and dressing them up in psuedo-scientific language. Using such arguement, rather than saying "I do not know" and then (if you choose) doing the hard work to back up your observations, is a bit embarassing. It also displays hubris and a lack of regard for truth that is unbecoming to Christianity. Perhaps it would be better to at least go to the library, read through the literature to be sure that your observations are reliable and question as to wether the observations you are using can support the conclusions you would like to make. As it is you have failed to present a challenge to the theory of evolution that can withstand even a cursory examination.

Back to encouraging you. You make some interesting assertions. If you go to work, who knows, you may be able to support some of them as something other than opinion. Darwin spent years in careful observation, reading and thought before presenting his theory and even then could not have begun to imagine how right he was. The types and depth of information that would later become available, were not yet in his arsenal. However, I must warn you that shooting off half-baked theories before you consider them or available observations and facts may gain you friends on the internet, but is unlikely to prove your point or present a modifcation or challenge to the theory of evolution.

 

[Verticordious]

Considering that you made absolutely no attempt to even address anything I said specifically, it would seem that you are the one making unfounded assumptions. You can try and cover it up with unnecessary pleasantries, but you issued a challenged and then backed down immediately. If my response was pseudo-science then prove by actually addressing the claims I made, unless of course you were never intending to engage in an actual discussion in the first place.

If you did some research you would know that Information Theory is a formalized field of study that has been around since the early 1950s, so these terms are not unscientific. Information Theory is directly responsible for the development of digital technology, including computers and the internet. You use and experience the advances made possible by this field of study, yet arrogantly dismiss it as pseudo-science without making any counter-arguments. You can babble on and call it whatever kind of names you want, but your lack of any counter-argument makes your assertions the unsupported ones.

 

[spiritual warrior]

1.) Provide a testable hypothesis that calls into question descent with
modification from common ancestors. (The theory of evolution)

We don't have to, for the hypothesis of descent with modification is a word game that has yet to be demonstrated true once all the myriad assumptions are removed from the equation.

Since virtually all scientists that accept what they are taught in secular textbooks without question, they believe the assumptions as taught to them - as facts. Since they believe these assumptions are actually facts, virtually all scientists in this country today believe the nonsense. However, all this can be quelled when we get down to genetics, for genetics does not give TOE what it needs in order to be real.

This is why, after the birth of genetics, Darwinism died off. But thanks to the Synthesis immediately afterwords, Neo-Darwinism was born...because atheistic scientists just couldn't let their pet theory die. The ONLY thing that ND has going for it is E. Mayr's ridiculous statement that geneticists have been repeating for the last 50 years..."Mutations give rise to new genetic material that drives evolution."

The nature of mutations do not do any such thing, this is the prime assumption taught as fact when it is only an unprovable assumption. Your challenge is hollow, for as long as geneticists continue to call non-random chance genetic changes as mutations (which they are not), they will continue to call adaptation "micro-evolution" and continue to butcher science in the name of their pet theory.

2.) Provide a replacement hypothesis for the theory of evolution

This is a standard challenge, and it is a ruse. There doesn't need to be a replacement theory when the one you have is wrong, and the fallacy of this challenge demonstrates yet again the argumentative nature of evolutionary scientists and theorists. The theory of phlogiston was entirely wrong, as has been many other scientific theories, and we didn't need a replacement theory in order to know that it was nonsense. It, too, finally went the way of the Dodo.

3.) Do #2, while providing a hypothesis that honors the Christian God as well as or better than the theory of evolution or alternatively satisfies todays religious anti-evolutionists.

Here you go, the truth (not just a theory)...God created all the organisms on this planet, with the capability for adaptation so that they could survive in the different climates He knew was coming after the flood. From these core organisms (for example, the elephant and dog) originated all the different variants of their original "kinds" (elephant = African elephant, Asian Elephant, Wholly Mammoth; Wolves = Great Danes, Chijuajuas, Huskies, and Tea-cup Terriers, etc...)

That answers your challenge, where is my hailings?

If you go beyond the scope of this question, to origins as far as TOE is concerned, you will be bested there too.

Good luck, I honestly hope that you are honestly searching for truth in this matter, because evolutionary theory fails and is a slap in the face of God. I don't say that from a religious point of view, but when we look at the facts of nature - divorcing it from the "facts" written into our science textbooks - we see a totally different set of laws for nature than what TOE tries to make us believe.

I don't believe in fairy tales, and I have the facts of nature to back me.

Best wishes...

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

^^^^ what he said!

 

[metherion]

Ah, but now you have to explain and define kinds, show that there were created 'kinds' instead of the accepted common descent, and (since science fields have to jive with one another) go find out all the evidence that largely Christian geologists have found since as early as the 1830s (note: before Darwin published his theory) that convinced them there was no Biblical Flood, as well as everything since then, and show THAT wrong too. After all, your replacement idea can't stand if it flat out contradicts geology (since it includes the Noachian Flood, if I am inferring correctly).

And it's really nice to be called atheistic and anti-God too, for accepting the TOE. It really feels good and isn't insulting, belittling, demeaning, or hurtful at all. (take knife, cut sarcasm).

Metherion

 

[lenpettis74]

How about you find one evolutionist who can harmonize the first 2 laws of thermodynamics with the "THEORY" of evolution? Or how nothing became something, then blew up and created everything? How about we simply reject the basis of your nonsensical arguments and lean on the one true evidence we have, the Bible?

 

[CTD]

Beyond "God didn't do it" there's no harmony in evolutionism.

 

[thephilosophizer]

How about you find one evolutionist who can harmonize the first 2 laws of thermodynamics with the "THEORY" of evolution? Or how nothing became something, then blew up and created everything? How about we simply reject the basis of your nonsensical arguments and lean on the one true evidence we have, the Bible?

What on earth does the net exchange of heat and energy in the universe have anything to do with the theory of evolution? Explain how those are incompatible and I will attempt to harmonize them. Also, this is a discussion about evolution, not the big bang, two entirely separate things.
I take from your statement that we should go by what the bible tells us literally? If my assumptions are correct, then how should we reconcile the differing accounts of creation between Genesis 1 and 2? If taken literally we are in a pickle, but if we take them as a figurative representation of God's immanence and transcendence as they were intended, then why couldn't it as well lend itself to evolution guided by God? It says that God molded man from the earth. When you mold pottery, does it not start from a lump yet is molded slowly through all of the in-between forms until it is a work of art? Why could this not be the same image of God's loving and careful creation?

 

[ohtoseehisface]

I think what lenpettis74 was getting at is the fact that evolution can never explain the origin of life. I know that's not the question at hand here, but I hope it is something we can all agree upon. Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed, I think science as a whole is ruled out as ever being able to explain the creation of life or energy, and yet it seems some try to use it to do so anyways.

I for one do not know positively if evolution occurred or not. I lean towards it not being true but not because it would reflect negatively on God's existence.

Anyways sorry to get off topic, just felt the need to say that.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Philosopher, I wont comment on the evolutionary side to this discussion, but I can tell you that genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other. if you find contradictions between them then you are guilty of being too literal in your reading.

Genesis 2 is nothing but a summation of Genesis 1, sequences of events is not to be applied to Genesis 2. Considers Matthew's recollection of the cursing of the fig tree in comparison to Mark's, a literal reading would impose a contradiction due to Matthew's style of writing that excludes a proper sequencing of the event.

We need to understand the Bible from a Semitic perspective, or we get into these messy situations.

 

[thephilosophizer]

Philosopher, I wont comment on the evolutionary side to this discussion, but I can tell you that genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other. if you find contradictions between them then you are guilty of being too literal in your reading.

Genesis 2 is nothing but a summation of Genesis 1, sequences of events is not to be applied to Genesis 2. Considers Matthew's recollection of the cursing of the fig tree in comparison to Mark's, a literal reading would impose a contradiction due to Matthew's style of writing that excludes a proper sequencing of the event.

We need to understand the Bible from a Semitic perspective, or we get into these messy situations.

I think you misunderstand me, because that is just what I am saying. I don't intend to say that the two accounts necessarily contradict, because then I would be reading too literally, but even the ancient editors knew that the stories differed.
However, I disagree in your reasoning; Genesis 2 is not a summation, it is its own separate account. Genesis 1 is meant to show God's transcendence to us: it is orderly, methodical, and portrays a God who is all powerful and above the earth. However, Genesis 2 retells the story from a more narrative, prosaic stance, with a supremely immanent God who literally breathes his breath into man, and whose hand is involved in all of nature. The purpose of the dual accounts is to show the duality of God's transcendence and closeness coexisting. I think we do this great passage a huge disservice if we merely call it a summation of what came before.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

It makes no sense for it to be a separate account, why? Because an account was given on the previous page, why would the writer want to confuse his audience? The second account is a summation in order to provide the context for the following passages concerning the fall of man.

 

[metherion]

I think what lenpettis74 was getting at is the fact that evolution can never explain the origin of life. I know that's not the question at hand here, but I hope it is something we can all agree upon. Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed, I think science as a whole is ruled out as ever being able to explain the creation of life or energy, and yet it seems some try to use it to do so anyways.

It's not supposed to. The origin of life is a different idea called abiogenesis. Saying evolution doesn't explain the origin of life is like saying the germ theory of disease doesn't explain how clouds stay in midair... so what?

The reason is also not the first OR the second law of thermodynamics. Those are gross misapplications to try and use them against the ToE. And the first would be applicable (but still misused) against the origin of the UNIVERSE, not of life.

Metherion

 

[lenpettis74]

@ thephilosophizer

From allaboutscience.org-
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

According to the second LAW of thermodynamics, if something only deteriorates over time, then the THEORY of evolution is not only impossible but ridiculous. The first LAW also nullifies the big bang THEORY and thus we can throw out the baby with the bath water. Furthermore, the lack of fossil evidence of one species changing into another is yet undiscovered (because it doesn't exist) so until something other than sketches show up in a museum, you must go back to the drawing board, or accept the evidence right in front of your face: Genesis is accurate, reliable, and true.

 

[metherion]

According to the second LAW of thermodynamics, if something only deteriorates over time, then the THEORY of evolution is not only impossible but ridiculous. The first LAW also nullifies the big bang THEORY and thus we can throw out the baby with the bath water. Furthermore, the lack of fossil evidence of one species changing into another is yet undiscovered (because it doesn't exist) so until something other than sketches show up in a museum, you must go back to the drawing board, or accept the evidence right in front of your face: Genesis is accurate, reliable, and true.

Gross misapplication.

Your reading of the 2nd law prevents life from even existing, not just forming. The ACTUAL way the second law is applied is this: There are three main ways living beings get their energy. 1: the Earth's own innate heat. This is things like undersea vents. Huge colonies of thermophilic bacteria live there. 2: the Sun. Yes, the Sun puts out a HUGE amount of energy, and loses orders of magnitude MORE than is converted into usable energy by life on Earth, thus NOT violating the 2nd law. 3: Eating. And when you eat, you do not gain all the energy from your food. You lose some to friction, you lose some to chewing, you lose some to digestion, you lose some when your body rebuilds what it digests into usable enzymes or amino acids or... you get the idea.

Saying "the 2nd law means everything is degrading so evolution can't improve stuff" is showing a gross misunderstanding of both thermodynamics, and evolution. I mean, according to that logic, snowflakes COULD NEVER FORM because they are more ordered. Your body could NEVER HEAL because healing reverses degradation. And so on.
You actually contradicted yourself when you said:

if something only deteriorates over time, then the THEORY of evolution is not only impossible but ridiculous

compared to

Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy.

, saying that things do NOT only deteriorate over time. And even so, the idea is still wrong.

Saying that the Big Bang violates the First law shows a misunderstanding of the BBT. The Big Bang theory is NOT "There was nothing, nothing exploded, and then everything came from nothing." The Big Bang theory stated more accurately is:
All matter and energy in the universe existed in a point in space, and then space itself expanded, and the matter and energy in the universe became distributed throughout it. Usually, it is thought that all that existed is energy, and that matter 'condensed' out of the energy after the universe cooled a la E=mc[sup]2[/sup].

As for fossils, there are PLENTY of fossils. Hundreds, thousands, if you are willing to just look. You can find actual fossils in museums, not just 'sketches'. And there has been actual, observed speciation:
Observed Instances of Speciation

NOW, I hear you saying "But that's talkorigins, that's propoganda." So here's what I say: Look at it. Read it. Go to the section 6.0, where it lists the sources. If you live in a big town, odds there is a university library. See if you can use that, or a public library, or something to take a look at the actual sources themselves.


And now for the last 5 words of your post:

Genesis is accurate, reliable, and true.

What do you mean by 'true'? There are many types of truth. I sure believe Genesis is true. I also believe that "The Boy who Cried Wolf" is true. And I believe that the parable of the Good Samaritan is true. Did all of these have to actually happen to be true? No, all of them are imparting some greater spiritual or moral knowledge. So is Genesis accurate, reliable, and true? Yes. It tells us that God is responsible for the whole universe and everything in it. That is accurate, and reliable, and true. The Bible is not a science textbook, it is a moral and spiritual guide from God.

Metherion

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The entire crux of pro-evolutionists are asking others to provide a testable hypothesis of creationism. There are problems with this, with the most satisfying one that scientists like to hear being 'there is no way to prove it'.

There are plenty of things that suggests evolutionary theory is problematic to it's own ideas. See, ToE works just fine if you ignore the things it can't realistically explain without patching it with some extraordinary twist, most of which seems to not even be relevant in what we observe.

ToE is heavily based on it's own hypothesis, picking and choosing what will work for it. In my opinion, that is not science.

Patchwork is not nearly enough to challenge a creationist, and so creationists should not be handed the burden of contrary proof.

Science, in a lot of ways, is very subjective, because one can only assume the initial condition of something. You can draw a conclusion of a godless Earth and universe, or you can draw a conclusion of intelligent design. It really puts into question many things, including even a flood. The billions of fossils and cracked landmasses we would expect from a great flood are after all there. The scientific appraoch is just another explanation, and always runs into anomalies. Every branch of science has them.

The difference between creationism and science thus far is that creationism has yet to be found wrong about anything really. It has only been asked to provide a proof which only God can permit. If you are looking for the 'fingerprints on the gun' kind of evidence. I see indirect evidence riddled everywhere.

ToE has just marched on continuously despite it's flaws to the point where it only stands because it's the only scientific rationale. By extension, it has become generally accepted ONLY because of that.

 

[lenpettis74]

A challenge to evolutionists, please answer the following questions:

1 - which evolved first, DNA or RNA?

2 - which evolved first, bone, muscle, ligaments, or tendons?

3 - which evolved first, the pupil or the retina?

4 - which evolved first, the lung, the mucous, the lining?

5 - how many hoaxes need to be demonstrated before you ignore the charlatans you are leave your "faith?"

THERE IS NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE CHANGE OF ONE SPECIES INTO ANOTHER.

Micro-evolution, yes. Macro-evolution no.

You are correct about truth Metherion. For example, it is true that there is only a 10% difference between human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA. How big of a difference is that? If you were to uncoil and stretch all of the DNA in your body to it's full length, it be long enough to go from the earth to the moon 500,000 times. Or if you were to print all of the information in all of your DNA onto 8.5 X 11" paper, it would fill the Grand Canyon about a dozen times. 10% is a HUGE HUGE HUGE DIFFERENCE. I guess it's also true that there are different kinds of lies also, like the lie of omission for example vs. the lie of commission. Evolution promotes both kinds of lies upon careful examination, doesn't it?

 

[thephilosophizer]

It makes no sense for it to be a separate account, why? Because an account was given on the previous page, why would the writer want to confuse his audience? The second account is a summation in order to provide the context for the following passages concerning the fall of man.

Well as I am sure you are aware, it is far more than probable that the accounts were written far apart and by separate authors, as many of the early stories of the bible did not just appear together in the form we have them, but were rather put together by an editor or editors much later, like the books from deuteronomy through II Kings were likely put together by one priestly source in a defined volume during the exile in Babylon. So it would actually make less sense for a separate author to write a summary, especially seeing as the second account is thought to be much older than the first. The wikipedia page on the subject has some great information to look at.

Gross misapplication.

Your reading of the 2nd law prevents life from even existing, not just forming. The ACTUAL way the second law is applied is this: There are three main ways living beings get their energy. 1: the Earth's own innate heat. This is things like undersea vents. Huge colonies of thermophilic bacteria live there. 2: the Sun. Yes, the Sun puts out a HUGE amount of energy, and loses orders of magnitude MORE than is converted into usable energy by life on Earth, thus NOT violating the 2nd law. 3: Eating. And when you eat, you do not gain all the energy from your food. You lose some to friction, you lose some to chewing, you lose some to digestion, you lose some when your body rebuilds what it digests into usable enzymes or amino acids or... you get the idea.

Saying "the 2nd law means everything is degrading so evolution can't improve stuff" is showing a gross misunderstanding of both thermodynamics, and evolution. I mean, according to that logic, snowflakes COULD NEVER FORM because they are more ordered. Your body could NEVER HEAL because healing reverses degradation. And so on.
You actually contradicted yourself when you said:

compared to
, saying that things do NOT only deteriorate over time. And even so, the idea is still wrong.

Saying that the Big Bang violates the First law shows a misunderstanding of the BBT. The Big Bang theory is NOT "There was nothing, nothing exploded, and then everything came from nothing." The Big Bang theory stated more accurately is:
All matter and energy in the universe existed in a point in space, and then space itself expanded, and the matter and energy in the universe became distributed throughout it. Usually, it is thought that all that existed is energy, and that matter 'condensed' out of the energy after the universe cooled a la E=mc[sup]2[/sup].

As for fossils, there are PLENTY of fossils. Hundreds, thousands, if you are willing to just look. You can find actual fossils in museums, not just 'sketches'. And there has been actual, observed speciation:
Observed Instances of Speciation

NOW, I hear you saying "But that's talkorigins, that's propoganda." So here's what I say: Look at it. Read it. Go to the section 6.0, where it lists the sources. If you live in a big town, odds there is a university library. See if you can use that, or a public library, or something to take a look at the actual sources themselves.


And now for the last 5 words of your post:


What do you mean by 'true'? There are many types of truth. I sure believe Genesis is true. I also believe that "The Boy who Cried Wolf" is true. And I believe that the parable of the Good Samaritan is true. Did all of these have to actually happen to be true? No, all of them are imparting some greater spiritual or moral knowledge. So is Genesis accurate, reliable, and true? Yes. It tells us that God is responsible for the whole universe and everything in it. That is accurate, and reliable, and true. The Bible is not a science textbook, it is a moral and spiritual guide from God.

Metherion

What this guy said ^^

A challenge to evolutionists, please answer the following questions:

1 - which evolved first, DNA or RNA?

2 - which evolved first, bone, muscle, ligaments, or tendons?

3 - which evolved first, the pupil or the retina?

4 - which evolved first, the lung, the mucous, the lining?

5 - how many hoaxes need to be demonstrated before you ignore the charlatans you are leave your "faith?"

THERE IS NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE CHANGE OF ONE SPECIES INTO ANOTHER.

Micro-evolution, yes. Macro-evolution no.

You are correct about truth Metherion. For example, it is true that there is only a 10% difference between human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA. How big of a difference is that? If you were to uncoil and stretch all of the DNA in your body to it's full length, it be long enough to go from the earth to the moon 500,000 times. Or if you were to print all of the information in all of your DNA onto 8.5 X 11" paper, it would fill the Grand Canyon about a dozen times. 10% is a HUGE HUGE HUGE DIFFERENCE. I guess it's also true that there are different kinds of lies also, like the lie of omission for example vs. the lie of commission. Evolution promotes both kinds of lies upon careful examination, doesn't it?

What do any of those questions prove? It's not at all hard to postulate answers to them. Just from first guesses and no research, I would say out of the choices:
1. RNA (simpler, DNA uses it for replication)
2. Probably bone as a specialized support structure while organisms had other methods of movement
3. Retina, light sensitivity obviously would have needed to come first before a pathway (pupil) would have been necessary
4. Probably the lining, as it could be used for many other things, and anaerobes don't need lungs much.
5. I don't grammatically understand the question, but if I ever found evidence that absolutely all evidence pointing towards evolution was found to be a hoax I would stop believing it. As it stands though, I stick by evolution, it makes sense when I think about it and apply it to what I know and observe about nature, and I trust in the far greater expertise of brilliant, Christian scientists who believe in the theory because there is simply no reason scientifically not to. The only thing that held me back when I was much younger was the idea that it went against the teachings of scripture, but I have since come to realize that much of Old Testament scripture contains some literal historical truth, but the point is mostly in the allegory, and the allegory works fine with the idea of evolution. The beauty and majesty of his attention for millenia of crafting man shows to me a far more loving God. So maybe we don't have the "missing link". We have species around today that weren't around then, and similar (but distinct) species that were around then that aren't now, and that is good enough for me.