Darwin's evolution theory?

[A. believer]

The question doesn't need answering, because it's nonsensical. It's like asking how evolution is possible if we really came from a great cow in the sky like some creation myths say.

The question has nothing to do with "how evolution is possible."

The questions are, "What is the origin of life?" and "How did biodiversity come about?"

Evolutionary scientists arbitrarily presuppose materialistic naturalism as a philosophical premise. If materialistic naturalism is an incorrect philosophical premise, and a Divine Mind with creative ability does exist, then the question can never be answered correctly by these scientists.

Of course evolution has changed since Origin was published. The then-unknown science of genetics had much to add.

Genetics didn't just "add", but it falsified some of Darwin's predictions. But why are you responding anyway? I thought you'd decided not to.

 

[Donkeytron]

The question has nothing to do with "how evolution is possible."

The questions are, "What is the origin of life?" and "How did biodiversity come about?"

Evolutionary scientists arbitrarily presuppose materialistic naturalism as a philosophical premise. If materialistic naturalism is an incorrect philosophical premise, and a Divine Mind with creative ability does exist, then the question can never be answered correctly by these scientists.



Genetics didn't just "add", but it falsified some of Darwin's predictions. But why are you responding anyway? I thought you'd decided not to.

Sorry, it's hard to let something like that go by without comment. What exactly has genetics falsified? I don't know what you're referring to.

As for naturalism, I think you mean methodological, rather than materialistic. And I don't see how scientific progress is possible without presupposing it. Supernaturalism was the dominant philosophy for most of history, and it wasn't much good, was it? Naturalism works.

BTW, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. One theory at a time.

 

[tall73]

Sorry, it's hard to let something like that go by without comment. What exactly has genetics falsified? I don't know what you're referring to.

As for naturalism, I think you mean methodological, rather than materialistic. And I don't see how scientific progress is possible without presupposing it. Supernaturalism was the dominant philosophy for most of history, and it wasn't much good, was it? Naturalism works.

BTW, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. One theory at a time.

His point is that if you presuppose naturalism then you would by default miss those things that happen through other means. You rule out explanations from the outset.

And as to genetics, Darwin did not understand that the only mechanism for the kind of change he theorized was random mutation. Those mutations must have sufficient time, parts of which the supposed dates do not allow for. So again, we are back to Haldane's dilemma.

Nor did Darwin realize the potential for diversity built into the genes. He understood that species were quite fixed. Now we know that is not completely true. In fact my dog example is a radical one, but illustrates the point.

Had Darwin realized these facts he might have never proposed the theory.

 

[A. believer]

Sorry, it's hard to let something like that go by without comment.

If you have trouble ignoring certain comments, then fine, but then please don't use your supposed exasperation with my so-called nonsense when you want to avoid responding to some cogent point, but then jump back in when you think you've caught me on something.

What exactly has genetics falsified? I don't know what you're referring to.

I believe, the reductionism of earlier evolutionary theory, but I'm not equipped to engage in a scientific discussion on the details.

As for naturalism, I think you mean methodological, rather than materialistic.

I'm referring to the view that matter is all that exists.

And I don't see how scientific progress is possible without presupposing it. Supernaturalism was the dominant philosophy for most of history, and it wasn't much good, was it? Naturalism works.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "much good." The supernaturalist view that acknowledges human accountability to a transcendent God was certainly superior to the arrogance that characterizes our own age. But if you're suggesting that the Christian worldview hindered scientific progress, then you're very mistaken. Scientific progress blossomed because of the Christian worldview.

BTW, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. One theory at a time.

Okay, pardon me for the slip.

 

[Donkeytron]

I guess that depends on what you mean by "much good." The supernaturalist view that acknowledges human accountability to a transcendent God was certainly superior to the arrogance that characterizes our own age. But if you're suggesting that the Christian worldview hindered scientific progress, then you're very mistaken. Scientific progress blossomed because of the Christian worldview.

I disagree. Christianity, in particular the catholic church, isn't well known for it's tolerance for new ideas and naturalistic endeavors. But that isn't the point. Show me a case where supernaturalism advanced our knowledge in a meaningful way.

 

[A. believer]

I disagree. Christianity, in particular the catholic church, isn't well known for it's tolerance for new ideas and naturalistic endeavors. But that isn't the point. Show me a case where supernaturalism advanced our knowledge in a meaningful way.

You identify yourself as a Christian with your little brown cross icon, but your posts sound exactly like what I get from the self-avowed atheists.

Certainly "supernaturalism" in the form of orthodox Christianity advances our moral knowledge in a meaningful way. Now I would expect an atheist to dispute that statement, although ultimately without an epistemological leg to stand on, but I find it unconscionable for a professing Christian to do so.

 

[Donkeytron]

You identify yourself as a Christian with your little brown cross icon, but your posts sound exactly like what I get from the self-avowed atheists.

Certainly "supernaturalism" in the form of orthodox Christianity advances our moral knowledge in a meaningful way. Now I would expect an atheist to dispute that statement, although ultimately without an epistemological leg to stand on, but I find it unconscionable for a professing Christian to do so.

If you've defaulted to calling me unchristian I assume you can't explain how supernaturalism advances civilization.

 

[A. believer]

If you've defaulted to calling me unchristian I assume you can't explain how supernaturalism advances civilization.

Assume what you like, although I find it a little strange since I already answered the question in the very same post you're referring to. It's still profoundly sad, though, that a professing Christian could even ask the question.

 

[dunkel]

We're all amateurs here on this board, and being an amateur isn't necessarily anything to be ashamed of.

Point taken. I guess I'm just tired of hearing arguments like "Christianity MUST be true because of all the martyrs that died for their faith" or "If Jesus DIDN'T rise from the dead, where is his body?" These types of examples do nothing to convince anyone that isn't already convinced.

 

[dunkel]

I'm not proposing that we need to ask "why" when testing a theory.

But that seems to be what you are attributing to the theory. Maybe not, I don't know, but that's how it seems from what you've said.

Again, this has nothing to do with the point. The point is that one must allow for the possibility that the theory could be false, and allow for the possibility of other theories.

Which is something that Creationism does not do. With Creationism, you already have the answer, you're just looking for something to back it up. If certain evidence falls through, you just look some more. Keep looking until you have the right evidence to back up the answer that you started with.

It's dishonest and foolish to assume that biodiversity must necessarily not have existed from the beginning because the only way it could have been so is if the natural world is not all there is. Yet this is precisely what evolutionary dogma is based on.

Any theory that is trying to explain natural phenomenon can only use natural tools. Should every theory have a "god factor" disclaimer? We could say, well, ya see, stars are large burning balls of gas...OR God just made little pinholes in the sky. We can't test for supernatural things, so they have to be ruled out, as far as the theory is concerned. We can't test for whether or not aliens are using Earth as an intergalactic zoo exhibit, so we should probably rule that out as well, at least as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. You're free to come up with competing theories, of course, with other parameters...but most scientists try to stick with what they can test. Can't test God, can you? Wasn't that in the Bible somewhere? Maybe not, I don't know.

It's this assumption that makes scientists so afraid to allow Intelligent Design theory a place in the public square. Don't be fooled into thinking that ID theorists are saying that evolution should be tossed aside in favor of ID. They're saying, let both theories be tested, taught, and considered.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, after all, it's been a few years since my last science class, but Intelligent Design and Creationism don't follow the same rules as other scientific theories...maybe THAT is why scientists don't want to give it the credit you apparently believe that it deserves. Does anyone know what the actual rules are for what makes a scientific theory and then show how ID or Creationism meets those requirements?

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/ darwinism refuted !
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/past.htm proof evilution is wrong many types of proof!! darwin stuff exposed !!!!

http://theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id42.html DARWIN EXPOSED ! ...........



Darwin himself said there was no proof!The Theory of Evolution-Darwin himself said there was no proof !
Can Evolution Produce an Eye? can evilution produce an Eye ?

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible 1. Darwin himself said it's false.

2. Forget about Dawin. There's what's called "Life or Death Facts". There's 100's of examples, but here's one:

- A bat is blind. It finds food by using ultra-sophisticated radar. While flying, targeting moving targets, while it's food is also flying. All the while the bat avoids branches, rocks, vines, makes adjustments based on wind currents, updrafts, it's prey dodging, on and on.
No bat can go millions of years without eating. Not even hundreds of years without eating. The first bat would need to have 100% perfect radar in order to survive and later breed more bats. No time to wait millions of years for trial and error while it perfects its radar system.
No chance the first bat mysteriously, instantly, mutated a 100% perfect radar system from nothing, from not having any radar system before. ..................... [font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Charles Darwin
Modern "science" perhaps owes no greater debt than that to Charles Darwin. Darwin owes a great debt to his granfather. It is a little known fact Erasmus Darwin laid the foundation for most of Charles Darwin's work.
[size=+0]Erasmus Darwinhttp://theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id41.html
There is much controversy over an alleged death bed conversion by Darwin. We do not wish to speculate on that. Many, especially Theistic Evolutionists tout Darwin as a Christian. Is this true?
Was Darwin A Christian?
Evolutionary thought has been around since before the time of Christ. Many have worked hard to lay the groundwork for society's acceptance of this theory.
[size=+0]History of Evolution[/size]
Evolution is not science. It is only a philosophy. It is a religious worldview that deifies mankind.
[size=+0]Evolution is a Religion[/size]
This religious world-view should be viewed in light of the fruit it has produced. Jesus said, A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Matthew 7:18 (KJV)
[size=+0]The Awful Effects[/size] http://theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id42.html ......................... http://www.creationfoundation.co.uk/Evolution/e0.html Evolution Exposed -- Dawkins and Darwinism Debunked!


[/size][/font]

 

[dunkel]

Way to Google, cut, and paste. I tried looking at some of your sites, but some of them had so many popups I had to give up.

On a side note, what is this fixation on Darwin, btw? Everyone wants to claim that Darwin has been proven wrong, Darwin debunked, Darwin lied, Darwin whatever. Should I point out that his theories are 150 years old? Is anyone trying so desperately to "debunk" other theories that are that old? Why is Darwin so especially dangerous? Nevermind, I think I know the answer.

While I'm ranting a bit here, can we all remember what the definitions of natural selection and evolution are? And that they are both very different from the "origins of life"? All natural selection does is explain how those organisms best suited for survival are the ones that, duh, survive. Is anyone trying to argue this? Is anyone saying that the weakest, slowest, dumbest animals are the ones that are more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation? Evolution is simply "change over time". It doesn't necessarily have to mean that a monkey turns into a person. Evolution can take place through natural selection, but they are two different ideas. How life actually began is a totally different subject altogether.

Let's just keep all this in mind while having these discussions, and maybe someone outside of your Bible study group will take you seriously.

 

[dunkel]

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/ Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.creationism.co.uk/html/creationism_debunked.html Creationism Debunked
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/ How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/creation_vs_evolution.htm Creation vs. Evolution
note, there is a funny cartoon on this one.

Wow, what do you know?...randomly searching Google and posting the results is fun. Now, I will say this...there were over 200,000 results for "evolution debunked" and just over 58,000 for "creationism debunked". I guess we have our answer...Google has spoken, evolution IS crap.

 

[A. believer]

But that seems to be what you are attributing to the theory. Maybe not, I don't know, but that's how it seems from what you've said.

Not exactly.

Which is something that Creationism does not do. With Creationism, you already have the answer, you're just looking for something to back it up. If certain evidence falls through, you just look some more. Keep looking until you have the right evidence to back up the answer that you started with.

And that's precisely my point in regard to evolutionary theory. The theory was proposed as a way to explain biodiversity without a Creator. The truth of the theory is taken by most mainstream scientists as a presuppositional starting point, and not a conclusion. But those who are embroiled in the effort to keep ID theory out of educational establishments will not admit this. They're lying, and people like you have swallowed their lie and are willingly propagating it.

Now Creationism, per se, does not claim to be an autonomous science. "Creationists" (as the term is generally used) openly admit their epistemological moorings, and they aren't embarrassed by them, and neither should they be. Autonomy is not only a rebellious starting point for intellectual endeavors, but it's an incoherent one as well, but that's another topic for another time. And Creationism isn't the topic of this discussion anyway. Intelligent Design theory is, and as I said earlier, the two are in no way synonymous. Creationists aren't the ones fighting to get their theory into the education establishment, so for the purposes of this discussion, they needn't even be considered.

Intelligent Design theory, like Evolutionary theory, is a paradigmatic framework through which evidence is interpreted. The true dispute between honest ID theorists and honest evolutionists is not whether one theory is "scientific" and the other is "faith based." The true dispute is which theory is more consistent with the evidence--which is a better explanation of the whole body of evidence. Both theories, though are "scientific" in one sense and "faith-based" in another. They're faith-based in the sense that their respective adherents are committed to working within one or the other paradigms based on their belief that the paradigm is correct. But they're both scientific in the sense that both rely on scientific methods of collecting and evaluating evidence; formulating hypotheses and testing them against the evidence, etc.

Any theory that is trying to explain natural phenomenon can only use natural tools. Should every theory have a "god factor" disclaimer? We could say, well, ya see, stars are large burning balls of gas...OR God just made little pinholes in the sky. We can't test for supernatural things, so they have to be ruled out, as far as the theory is concerned. We can't test for whether or not aliens are using Earth as an intergalactic zoo exhibit, so we should probably rule that out as well, at least as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. You're free to come up with competing theories, of course, with other parameters...but most scientists try to stick with what they can test. Can't test God, can you? Wasn't that in the Bible somewhere? Maybe not, I don't know.

You're confusing so many categories here, I'm having trouble extricating them all in a coherent way, so I decided not to even bother trying. I'll just point out, though, that Intelligent Design theory is not about testing supernatural things, but about drawing rational conclusions consistent with the evidence. "SETI" scientists search for signs of intelligent life beyond our planet, for example, by looking at signal patterns. The goal is to distinguish non-random signals from random ones, with the presumption that non-random signals would indicate purpose and intelligence. ID theory is based on the same presumption. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, presupposes that intelligence and purpose don't exist, and hence other explanations for "apparent design" are sought.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, after all, it's been a few years since my last science class, but Intelligent Design and Creationism don't follow the same rules as other scientific theories...maybe THAT is why scientists don't want to give it the credit you apparently believe that it deserves. Does anyone know what the actual rules are for what makes a scientific theory and then show how ID or Creationism meets those requirements?

Again, Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things. You really ought to educate yourself before buying into the propaganda of the evolutionary establishment. Perhaps this might be a good starting place.

 

[knownbeforetime]

Great if only He directly told us!

God told Moses directly, face to face.

Thank God that God did not personally write the Bible and that God is not a book otherwise He would also be a liar.

God inspired the Bible. He told the "authors" exactly what to write.

The authors of the Bible record, not God directly. Are we supposed to worship a book nowadays? Are we supposed to think that rabbits chew the cud cause some old guy made a typo?

We worship God, who inspired the Bible.

Evolutionists (God I hate the word) claim better. They are guaranteed to offer you the BEST explanation mankind has to offer on natural phenomena. Which is much more than can be said about theologians and priests. You see, unlike theology, in science there are very few competing theories at any one time and the competition does not last. Now explain to me how in the name of God there are so many different religions and sects out there since we supposedly know everything there is to know through a book?

No, creationists claim better. We've got the best explanation God has to offer, which is always better than what man has to offer. The reason there are so many religions around is because Satan doesn't want us to believe what the Bible says about the one, true God.

My friend is a liar. If you refer to God thank Him for not actually telling me a single tibit of information that goes against the evidence cause He would be contradicting Himself. What is being told and paraded around is an ancient myth that some poeple ascribed to in the quite distant past. If God wanted me to believe in Creationism He should have never left all those fossils, ERV insertions, radioactive compounds, distant stars lying around or maybe just tell us directly at birth that He is sorry but He didn't have time to tidy the place up since creation.

So you believe God really is a liar? I guess we should close the forums... If God is a liar, then there is no point continuing in such a charade as Christianity. <-- sarcasm You would only see the evidence and not listen to any higher authority. How sad... How did you become a Christian anyway? You seem to have so many doubts about the whole thing.

The problem with Creationism EXACTLY too many people have left christianity from something as simple as a geology colege course.

Did you know that some people view saving a soul as a miracle in itself? It comes from someone praying for you, maybe someone you haven't even met yet. And when God recieves those prayers, the Holy Spirit directs people into your life that will eventually lead you to Him.

Why would someone leave because of a college course? Maybe, there were still adoring man's limited knowledge but hadn't grasped a true knowledge of God. I should know, I had my backsliding days. And just because they leave doesn't mean they won't come back.

I am not going to comment on the mini testimony. I have read quite a few from ex-creationists who also became ex-christians when they finally realised that they had their head in the sand. All that I am saying is that it doesnt have to be so.

I assure you, my head is not in any proverbial sand. It doesn't have to be so? Are you saying it's alright to pervert God's wisdom with Man's wisdom? I suggest you read the ten commandments...

 

[dunkel]

Not exactly.

Well that clears that up, thanks.

And that's precisely my point in regard to evolutionary theory. The theory was proposed as a way to explain biodiversity without a Creator. The truth of the theory is taken by most mainstream scientists as a presuppositional starting point, and not a conclusion. But those who are embroiled in the effort to keep ID theory out of educational establishments will not admit this.

Evolution doesn't say one way or the other whether God exists. All it does is try explain how life has developed over the years. Just because it doesn't specifically allow for God doesn't mean it denies God. In fact, it has nothing to do with God at all. You say it presupposes no God, which is attributing to it something that it actually says nothing about. It's like saying it presupposes that Dunkel didn't have anything to do with it. It doesn't say "there is no God", but it also doesn't say "there is a God". It only concerns itself with we can see in the natural world. ID does not do this. ID starts with the assumption that there is a God or some other "higher being" or "higher intelligence" or whatever you want to call it. You can't test for it, you can't observe it, you can't do anything except say "it's there".

They're lying, and people like you have swallowed their lie and are willingly propagating it.

You're attributing something to me that you can't back up. I'm not defending the validity of evolution. I don't now which of the many theories are correct. All I'm saying is that these scientific theories are doing the best that they can with the information that they have. They look at the world and say "this is the best idea we can come up with". They don't come across something they can't explain, throw their hands up and say, "God made it that way".

Now Creationism, per se, does not claim to be an autonomous science. "Creationists" (as the term is generally used) openly admit their epistemological moorings, and they aren't embarrassed by them, and neither should they be. Autonomy is not only a rebellious starting point for intellectual endeavors, but it's an incoherent one as well, but that's another topic for another time. And Creationism isn't the topic of this discussion anyway. Intelligent Design theory is, and as I said earlier, the two are in no way synonymous. Creationists aren't the ones fighting to get their theory into the education establishment, so for the purposes of this discussion, they needn't even be considered.

Some Creationists would like to see their "theory" taught in schools. But fair enough.

Intelligent Design theory, like Evolutionary theory, is a paradigmatic framework through which evidence is interpreted. The true dispute between honest ID theorists and honest evolutionists is not whether one theory is "scientific" and the other is "faith based." The true dispute is which theory is more consistent with the evidence--which is a better explanation of the whole body of evidence. Both theories, though are "scientific" in one sense and "faith-based" in another. They're faith-based in the sense that their respective adherents are committed to working within one or the other paradigms based on their belief that the paradigm is correct. But they're both scientific in the sense that both rely on scientific methods of collecting and evaluating evidence; formulating hypotheses and testing them against the evidence, etc.

Calling science a "faith" is an old, old way to attack it. Trying to show that science is no better because, hey, it's just "faith" in a different God. Showing that it is simply a way of rebelling against God or some other nonsense. Yes, science has to make assumptions and has to work within a framework, but the difference is that if those assumptions are proven wrong or the framework is proven unworkable, science can create new ones. Religion can't...if you're proven wrong about some pseudo-scientific explanation for Intelligent Design or Creationism, you go back to your original assumptions and try finding different evidence. The framework never changes, despite any setbacks it might suffer.

You're confusing so many categories here, I'm having trouble extricating them all in a coherent way, so I decided not to even bother trying. I'll just point out, though, that Intelligent Design theory is not about testing supernatural things, but about drawing rational conclusions consistent with the evidence. "SETI" scientists search for signs of intelligent life beyond our planet, for example, by looking at signal patterns. The goal is to distinguish non-random signals from random ones, with the presumption that non-random signals would indicate purpose and intelligence. ID theory is based on the same presumption. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, presupposes that intelligence and purpose don't exist, and hence other explanations for "apparent design" are sought.

SETI is not a theory. It expressely states that it is, duh, a Search for Extra Terrestial Intelligence. And, no, ID is not about testing supernatural beings, because, being supernatural, they can't be tested, can they? At least not with the natural tools that we have. ID is about assuming that there is something supernatural out there and going from there. It is a positive assumption, not an assumption by omission, which would be a more accurate description of evolution.[/QUOTE]

Again, Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things. You really ought to educate yourself before buying into the propaganda of the evolutionary establishment. Perhaps this might be a good starting place.

Yeah, that's why I've been mentioning them both. But they are both based on religious principles. Educate yourself...the ID movement grew out of the Creationist movement when some of them figured they'd be taken more seriously if they espoused their beliefs in more "scientific" trappings.

And, no, I don't buy into any propogana...secular or religious. Obviously you do. That's fine, I'm not here to judge

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

Scientists Admit:
Evolution Not Supported By Facts!Found at the webpage:http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp



[size=-1]Issue Date: January/February 1987[/size]



"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

On many campuses, any professor who admits having doubts about the "factual" nature of evolution would be laughed off the campus (and out of his job). But today, more and more courageous scientists are publicly admitting what they have known privately for years: believing in evolution requires an act of blind faith.

Does evolution square with the facts? Here are the statements of several scientific leaders as found in The Quote Book, published by Creation Science Foundation Ltd.



Evolutionists Great Con Men

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)



Do Fossils Prove It?

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.



But What About Those Bones?

"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.)

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.



But the World Is So Old...Isn't It?

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.



Carbon-14 Will Tell Us...Won't It?

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)



When Did Dinosaurs Really Live?

The existence of dinosaurs long before man came along has been almost a basic tenet of faith for the evolutionist. But what if the footprints of both man and dinosaur were found together?

In the Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, 1983, David H Milne and Steven D Schafersman tell us "Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrine of creationism and catastrophism."

Well gentlemen, not only have both man and dinosaur prints been found together in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois, but other U.S. locations as well.



Why Do They Do It?

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)

Since the facts do not prove evolution, since the fossil record does not show any transition from one species to another, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, let us remember that for those who desperately desire to reject God, evolution is a religion of last resort. If there is no Creator, there can be no sin, and no need of a Saviour.

A. Lunn summed up the curious faith of the evolutionist as follows: "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." (The Collapse of Evolution, by Dr. Scott Huse.) Those supposedly omniscient scientists who still teach evolution as though it were fact are finally seen for what they are...frail men willing to believe a lie because it helps them avoid the truth.



Search for more articles on this subjectHome Page©1984-2001 Chick Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.

More Creation Science Websites for your information:​

The Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm

Links to many Creation Research Sites
http://www.netsync.net/users/rfarney/creationresearch.htm

Creation Research Society Abstracts of Articles
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts.htm

Creation Science Online
http://www.creationonline.org/frame.htm

Bible verses to Ponder

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament (atmosphere) showeth his handiwork.
Psa 19:1 (KJV)

{13} The LORD looketh from heaven;
he beholdeth all the sons of men.
{14} From the place of his habitation
he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
{15} He fashioneth their hearts alike;
he considereth all their works.
Psa 33:13-15 (KJV)

{4} For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.
{5} He loveth righteousness and judgment:
the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.

{6} By the word of the LORD were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
{7} He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap:
he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

{8} Let all the earth fear the LORD:
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
{9} For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
{10} The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought:
he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
{11} The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever,
the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

{12} Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; ​

​

Psa 33:13-12a (KJV) ​

​

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

[url]http://www.wbschool.org/chinesecharacters.htm[/url] really good china was into our God before they switched letters in chinese show it all !

 

[GraceInHim]

[url="http://www.wbschool.org/chinesecharacters.htm"]http://www.wbschool.org/chinesecharacters.htm[/url] really good china was into our God before they switched letters in chinese show it all !

I heard the scientist for supporting evolution did not show up to court in Kansas???