Evoloution is Just Bad Science

[rmwilliamsll]

You think that all of the earth's scientists believe in evolution???
There are thousands (25,000) of scientists around the world that think evolution is impossible. That number is growing daily as the flaws of evolution and truths of Creationism are revealed.

1. reference on thousands of scientists that reject evolution as impossible. you don't even have to show 25K, just a few K would suffice. where are they?

2. document 1 flaw of evolution so that we can have something substantial to discuss. otherwise the thread is nothing but unsupported assertation and poor understanding of the data.

 

[notto]

You think that all of the earth's scientists believe in evolution???
There are thousands (25,000) of scientists around the world that think evolution is impossible. That number is growing daily as the flaws of evolution and truths of Creationism are revealed.

Wow, you have some great information. Can you provide us a source for this amazing fact? How was it determined? Where is it documented?

Can you name 3 that have abandoned evolution for creationism in the last year? I mean if it is growing daily, that should be easy.

 

[Lilandra]

I am new to this forum, but from what I have seen, all of the arguments regarding evoloution are old and tired and frankly, Not even good science.

The latest scientific information regarding DNA, verses Evoloutionary theory, is that under the constraints of Evoloution, DNA, being Digital Code, invalidates all Evoloutionary theory. Since DNA is Coded information about how matter is to be constructed, it is impossible that DNA could occur naturally. All Good Scientists know that Digital Code comes from an intelligent source, not by random selection. Anyway, I have taught this subjest for 20 + years and have over 1,000 hours of lectures on the subject. I look forward to any intelligent interaction with well informed challengers, if you dare!

Maybe some of the more diplomatic evos can take turns introducing newbies to the CE board.

Notto, Tomk80, Vance, Gluadys, H2Whoa, Jet Black, Dale Usincognito, michabo,HRE, Sotek I can't think of others who have helped me to understand.

I learn from the less diplomatic here too but I don't take the jibes personally.

Just a thought

 

[Wonderfulcross]

What truth would that be? That it's true because you said so? Sorry, but your arguement is stale and bland.

It's not because I say so. It's a statistic.

And what argument are you refering to?

 

[Lithium Hobo]

It's not because I say so. It's a statistic.

And what argument are you refering to?

That creationism has more to stand on than evolution and that more and more scientists are supporting creationism.

 

[Wonderfulcross]

Wow, you have some great information. Can you provide us a source for this amazing fact? How was it determined? Where is it documented?

Can you name 3 that have abandoned evolution for creationism in the last year? I mean if it is growing daily, that should be easy.

There is a book titled,In Six Days. Most of the scientists in there used to be evolutionists.
Dr. James S. Allan-Genetics
Dr. Jobe Martin- not in this book- biologists
Dr. Bob Hoskin-Biochemistry
Dr. Henry Zuill-Biology

you were right, that was easy.

 

[notto]

There is a book titled,In Six Days. Most of the scientists in there used to be evolutionists.
Dr. James S. Allan-Genetics
Dr. Jobe Martin- not in this book- biologists
Dr. Bob Hoskin-Biochemistry
Dr. Henry Zuill-Biology

you were right, that was easy.

I think you missed the 'in the last year' part. If it is happening almost daily, we should be able to get a few recent converts. Also, any chance of you telling us where you get the 25,000 figure? It is amazing if true. How did you get this information?

Are you sure Jobe Martin is a scientist? I think he is a minister like Chuck.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There is a book titled,In Six Days. Most of the scientists in there used to be evolutionists.
Dr. James S. Allan-Genetics
Dr. Jobe Martin- not in this book- biologists
Dr. Bob Hoskin-Biochemistry
Dr. Henry Zuill-Biology

you were right, that was easy.

the book is online at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/ISD/index.asp
well #1-12 anyhow.

from James Allen at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/allan.asp

I must admit that the six days of the creation presented some difficulty for me. The apparent logic of conclusions from observations and measurements in various fields of science had previously led me to doubt the little I had known of the Word of God, to the extent that I had agreed with attempts to replace it with an alternative concept of time. But God does not say eons or years or months or weeks—He says days, and we generally understand days to be 24-hour periods.

I then realized that had God wanted to say a billion years rather than six days, He could have said it, very simply, in the way He spoke to Abraham: “I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted” (Gen. 13:16). In the same way He could have said, “I took as many years as there are particles of dust on the earth to create the heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that is in them” and it would have sounded very impressive but He said six days. Would He have said this if it were of no concern?

I now believe that God means literally what He says and writes, and that there is no reason to look for symbolism. The word day is used so often and with such a clear implication of being a normal 24-hour period that to interpret it otherwise requires, to my mind, an unbelievable stretch of the imagination. (See also Jer. 33:20.)

it is clear that he understands that theology trumps science, not that science is faulty as much as he sees no other way to be true to his faith.

It is also clear that he understands and even believed that evolutionary theory was true, therefore there are only 24999 scientists left to prove your point. *grin*.

....

 

[Wonderfulcross]

Are you sure Jobe Martin is a scientist? I think he is a minister like Chuck.[/QUOTE]

I have a video of Jobe Martin called Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution. In there he goes into detail about how he majored in biology and is indeed a scientists. Chuck is like him. He has all of those impressive degrees many will never dream of having, and is still a minister. By the way, I think i got that statistic from Chuck.

 

[Arikay]

I would also be very interested in the statistical data for 25,000 and climbing.

 

[Lucretius]

Are you sure Jobe Martin is a scientist? I think he is a minister like Chuck.

I have a video of Jobe Martin called Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution. In there he goes into detail about how he majored in biology and is indeed a scientists. Chuck is like him. He has all of those impressive degrees many will never dream of having, and is still a minister. By the way, I think i got that statistic from Chuck. [/QUOTE]

Name a creature that defies evolution.

 

[Dale]

WonderfulCross in post #46:
<< **Fossil frauds(Lucy, Neanderthal Man Nebraska Man) >>

Who told you that the Neanderthals were a fraud?
You don't seem to understand that science is self correcting, mistakes are ferreted out.


<< *The human body has no vestigial structures. If you would like me to elaborate, please respond.>>

There are lots of them. How about those dooflinkiles at the inside edge of the eyes? The appendix? Aren't fingernails vestigial claws?

 

[Wonderfulcross]

That creationism has more to stand on than evolution and that more and more scientists are supporting creationism.

First off, there are less scientists supporting Creation than evolution, but the reason being that these new findings are recent and have been pursuading scientists for less time than evolution.

I know that Creationism has the fact that the earth is around 10,000 years old to stand on.

*Everyone knows that the earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rapid rate. When it decays, it transfers to heat. Just 25,000 years ago, at the rate it was decaying, the earth would have been frying at 5,000 degrees.

*There would be way too many humans on the earth if our ancestors started appearing 1-2 millioj years ago. The human birth rate is at 0.6 percent. Combined with the early appearence of our ancestors, there would be about 4 trillion humans on earth.(In Six Days) If we started a few thousand years ago, we would have about 8 billion.

*Salt is entering the sea faster than it is escaping. Scientists estimated the maximum age of the sea is 62 million years old(not enough time for evolution to occur)
*The inventor of Carbon 14 dating, noticed that if the earth were over 30,000 years old, Carbon 14 and carbon 12 would be in a state of equilibrium. They have a 20% discrepency between them.
All of my info. is either from that book, a Scientist Chuck Missler, or the internet.

 

[Wonderfulcross]

2. document 1 flaw of evolution so that we can have something substantial to discuss. otherwise the thread is nothing but unsupported assertation and poor understanding of the data.[/QUOTE]

Where would the DNA in the first cell (or any living organism) get the blueprints to construct new structures? DNA only has information that makes the organism function with what it already has. It has been proven that DNA can't obtain foreign information. So where did that information come from?

 

[notto]

Funny, Jobe doesn't mention any scientific training or degrees in his bio.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_martin.asp

Looks like he went to dental school and seminary. Nothing about biology unless he had it in detnal school which was over 40 years ago.

Chuck as well, doesn't mention any science degrees. Just work with guided missles and business.

http://www.khouse.org/about.html

Can you tell us what those degrees are that they have?

 

[michabo]

*Everyone knows that the earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rapid rate. When it decays, it transfers to heat. Just 25,000 years ago, at the rate it was decaying, the earth would have been frying at 5,000 degrees.

As everyone knows, the tide is rising at a rapid rate. When it rises, land disappears. Just 300 years ago, at the rate it is rising, the earth would have no water at all.

*There would be way too many humans on the earth if our ancestors started appearing 1-2 millioj years ago. The human birth rate is at 0.6 percent. Combined with the early appearence of our ancestors, there would be about 4 trillion humans on earth.(In Six Days) If we started a few thousand years ago, we would have about 8 billion.

Why stop at a few thousand years? As everyone knows, rabbits can give birth at 3months of age with a litter of 4-12 after a one month gestation period. Based on the number of rabbits we see, the earth can not be more than 100 years old.

 

[Wonderfulcross]

There are lots of them. How about those dooflinkiles at the inside edge of the eyes? The appendix? Aren't fingernails vestigial claws?[/QUOTE]

First off, fingernails are nothing like claws. They are in a different position, have a different function(that's right they have a function) and they are not designed like claws. If we let our fingernails grow, they would still not appear like claws or serve the same function(grabing, holding ro prey, tearing prey)

Fingernails protect the skin underneath them(same with toenails). Vestigial structures have no function therefore they are not vestigial.
*The Appendix: creates antibodies, protects the intestines from infections and helps provent the body from getting diseases like blood cancer.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

2. document 1 flaw of evolution so that we can have something substantial to discuss. otherwise the thread is nothing but unsupported assertation and poor understanding of the data.

Where would the DNA in the first cell (or any living organism) get the blueprints to construct new structures? DNA only has information that makes the organism function with what it already has. It has been proven that DNA can't obtain foreign information. So where did that information come from?

i dont think you understand the central dogma of molecular biochemistry. and i am not sure how to answer such a mistaken notion.

dna is more like a recipe than a blueprint.
it creates an organism over time.
mutations in DNA cause changes in the organism which develops, i have no idea what you mean by foreign information. nor do i understand why information theory is added as another level of complexity to an already daunting subject.

...

 

[Wonderfulcross]

Can you tell us what those degrees are that they have?[/QUOTE]

In that movie, I know for a fact that he majored in biology and even gives lectures on the subject.

1 animal. Giraffe

heart is 24 pounds and 2.5 feet long. it needs this heart to pump blood to its brain. What happens when the Giraffe bends down to get a drink? The intense pressure on its brain would literally explode. That doesn't happen. The Giraffe has a sponge-like material in between the valve from the heart, and the brain. When it bend down, the material absorbs the blood so it doesn't explode, then slowly releases it so it doesn't passout. If the giraffe didn't have this mechanism from the beginning, it would have died. Therefore, it couldn't have evolved this structure.

 

[Wonderfulcross]

dna is more like a recipe than a blueprint.

They are the same thing They are both instructions on how to create something.