Evolution is a lie?

[Hkizzle]

First of all I want to state that I'm not an athetist who denies the existence of God. It's my personal belief that the DNA sequence and evolution is such a perfect mechanism it's hard to believe such perfection came about by chance. However, I also believe there's a difference between faith and belief and hard evidence or facts.

Which gets me to my main point. I was directed here because in another forum which isn't related to religion an evolution vs creationism debate started, and someone said evolution is a lie. This really irritated me because science doesn't adopt a belief or try to support a belief or lie, it just tries to come up with unbiased models or theories which best explain all the observable data.

Evolution is so accurate that for it to be false a lot of the observations in biology, genetics and palentology wouldn't make sense. It's like having a puzzle with thousands of clues and only one answer, and the answer which best fits is evolution. If creationism explained the data the best then that's what the scientific community would stand behind in an UNBIASED way.

Evolution isn't a lie, and it's not meant to be part of a biased agenda. Science doesn't seek to disprove God, although some extremists like Richard Dawkins does. Science just seeks to find the truth after looking at ALL evidence.

Creationists on the other hand don't do that, and the ones who refer to science aren't using scientific methodology. Scientific methodology demands that you look at all information in an unbiased way. What creationists are doing is adopting a position "I believe God created us the way we are and we didn't evolve into what we are" and then ONLY refer to arguements which support this claim, whilst automatically refute all the countless observations which support evolution.

I'm not here to say whether creationism is correct or evolution is correct. Rather I am curious as to whether anyone here thinks creationists actually use the correct scientific methodology when addressing creation science and why. Or prove that the majority of the scientific community does have an agenda and is deliberately promoting a lie.

 

[KWCrazy]

science doesn't adopt a belief or try to support a belief or lie, it just tries to come up with unbiased models or theories which best explain all the observable data.

Evolution has never been oserved. It's based on repeated benevolent mutations which are incredibly rare and contends that such is the driving force of nature. It points to adaptation; a conservative process; and uses it as evidence of increasing complexity. Increasing complexity is not observed in nature. Even the simplest life forms have complex DNA.

Creationists on the other hand don't do that, and the ones who refer to science aren't using scientific methodology.

Here's a question in logic. If creation happened by a miracle of God in violation of nartural law, could a science based on the study of natrual law ever possibly get the right answer regarding the process?

Scientific methodology demands that you look at all information in an unbiased way.

But they ARE biased in that they demand all answers be framed using natural processes. Miracles defy natural processes.

What creationists are doing is adopting a position "I believe God created us the way we are and we didn't evolve into what we are" and then ONLY refer to arguements which support this claim,

More accurately, we take the position that the Bible is the literal word of God. We understand that many of the things that were recorded in the Bible could not possibly have happened in accordance with natural law. We recognize that natural law has no constraint on a supernatural Creator, and we understand that God could have created the universe in any manner He saw fit. He would not, however, lie about how He did it. We further recognize that the forth Commandment was given in recognition of the six day creation and the subsequent day of rest.

I am curious as to whether anyone here thinks creationists actually use the correct scientific methodology when addressing creation science and why.

Creation is a fact of our existence, not a scientific theory.

 

[super animator]

Ummm to let you know that this is a christian only section. So I would advise that you would ask the mods to move this thread to an appropriate place.

 

[Skarl]

Ummm to let you know that this is a christian only section. So I would advise that you would ask the mods to move this thread to an appropriate place.

Exploring Christianity maybe, or something like that, yeah.

 

[super animator]

Exploring Christianity maybe, or something like that, yeah.

Or the creation vs evolution at the society section.

 

[Hkizzle]

Thanks for the responses. There's so many sub forums I didn't know where to post. I posted in the creation & evolution forum as well. Feel free to delete this thread, it wasn't my intention to break forum rules.

 

[KTskater]

A have a couple thoughts regarding your post.
The first is that I agree with you about the mindset of creationists. However, if you are not a Christian, it may be hard to understand why someone would take such a "blind" position. When I say "blind", I'm referring to the idea of "blind faith." There are many things in the Bible that I believe that science says are not possible and/or cannot be explained. I have seen people get out of wheel chairs and personally prayed over someone who was blind and regained their vision.
On the other hand, I'm finishing up my undergraduate studies in biological anthropology and will be attending graduate school for bioarchaeology and forensics in the fall. My brain has been wired for science for the last three and a half years of my life. I eat, sleep and breathe the scientific method. So, I also see the rational, secular side of the debate.
Personally, I think that creationists are totally in error as far as the facts go, but I can also see how their faith drives them to take what the Bible says at face value.

My second thought is that we should be careful when saying the scientific community isn't biased. As someone who spends a good amount of time with graduate students, professors and post-docs, I will tell you that there is plenty of bias within all groups of people. However, the scientific method is not biased. This is why articles go through the peer-review process before publication. This helps to eliminate a biased interpretation of the data and allow other scientists to examine the findings. Furthermore, many scientists will purposefully do the same experiments in order to see if they find the same sort of data. Disproving another scientist's theory gets you recognition and prestige, especially if it's a well established theory. In conclusion, to say that individual scientists or their community is unbiased isn't really a true statement. We simply have checks and balances to make sure those biases don't shine through in our findings.

 

[Smidlee]

First of all I want to state that I'm not an athetist who denies the existence of God. It's my personal belief that the DNA sequence and evolution is such a perfect mechanism it's hard to believe such perfection came about by chance. However, I also believe there's a difference between faith and belief and hard evidence or facts.

Which gets me to my main point. I was directed here because in another forum which isn't related to religion an evolution vs creationism debate started, and someone said evolution is a lie. This really irritated me because science doesn't adopt a belief or try to support a belief or lie, it just tries to come up with unbiased models or theories which best explain all the observable data.

Evolution is so accurate that for it to be false a lot of the observations in biology, genetics and palentology wouldn't make sense. It's like having a puzzle with thousands of clues and only one answer, and the answer which best fits is evolution. If creationism explained the data the best then that's what the scientific community would stand behind in an UNBIASED way.

Why do you think scientist are so different than politicians, lawyers, judges, preachers, used car salesmen, etc? That last statement tells me you don't know much about human nature. (I remember one reporter years ago mention how one group of scientist saw another group with different views as a butch of idiots and visa versa. As Paul wrote knowledge puffs one up.)
Now I wouldn't say evolution (universal common ancestor?) is a lie but just plain wrong. The Darwin's tree of life only exist in text books.

 

[berachah]

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called..

Evolution is a lie based on half truths, false science and ignorance, whose proponents invariably ignore scientific laws when covenient. Attempts to claim the scientific high ground is laughable.

For starters maybe if 1 evolutionist could give a scientific answer to one of the following

1. The probability of spontaneous life bursting forth from the non living is statistically so utterly remote as to be impossible
2. How does genetic material continually get into increasingly complex and advanced species?
3. How could the 1st organism survive? Did it spontaneously burst forth with the capacity to ingest, digest, eliminate waste, locomote to find food and have reproductive capacity?
4. The 2nd law of themodynamics says that over time systems break down and deteriate. Evolutions defies this law!

 

[florida2]

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called..

Evolution is a lie based on half truths, false science and ignorance, whose proponents invariably ignore scientific laws when covenient. Attempts to claim the scientific high ground is laughable.

For starters maybe if 1 evolutionist could give a scientific answer to one of the following

1. The probability of spontaneous life bursting forth from the non living is statistically so utterly remote as to be impossible
2. How does genetic material continually get into increasingly complex and advanced species?
3. How could the 1st organism survive? Did it spontaneously burst forth with the capacity to ingest, digest, eliminate waste, locomote to find food and have reproductive capacity?
4. The 2nd law of themodynamics says that over time systems break down and deteriate. Evolutions defies this law!

Firstly, I'd love to see your evidence of lies and half truths.

Secondly, the 2nd law question has been answered many times if you do a little research, both on this forum and elsewhere.

 

[KTskater]

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called..

Evolution is a lie based on half truths, false science and ignorance, whose proponents invariably ignore scientific laws when covenient. Attempts to claim the scientific high ground is laughable.

For starters maybe if 1 evolutionist could give a scientific answer to one of the following

1. The probability of spontaneous life bursting forth from the non living is statistically so utterly remote as to be impossible
2. How does genetic material continually get into increasingly complex and advanced species?
3. How could the 1st organism survive? Did it spontaneously burst forth with the capacity to ingest, digest, eliminate waste, locomote to find food and have reproductive capacity?
4. The 2nd law of themodynamics says that over time systems break down and deteriate. Evolutions defies this law!

1. Evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life. The theory is starts after we already have life. Abiogenesis doesn't fall under Darwin's theory, which is a theory about speciation, not the origins of life as whole. You'll have to find another theory to argue with for the appearance of the first genetic material.

2. Species are not actually getting more complex in a scientific sense. A king crab has 208 chromosomes, and humans have 46. Does this mean that the crab is more genetically complex and advanced than a human? New genetic material appears often because of mutation. In a twenty year time span there are approximately 4.4 x 10-8 mutations per base pair in nuclear DNA. Given that the average human genome has about 6.6 billion base pairs, that means we have an average of 227 mutations in each individual in one generation. Essentially, each child has, on average, 227 units of information that did not come from either one of their parents.

3. Once again, evolution can't answer questions about the origin of the first genetic material. However, many believe that it was a single cell. Read up on what we know about single celled organisms and you'll find a lot of what this first form of life my have looked like. If a scientist is honest with you, they will tell you that we don't know a lot about what the first cell might have been capable of, but that doesn't disprove the entire theory.

4. You don't have to take a course in physics to know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is in reference the entirety of a closed or isolated system. In other words, a system that has nothing coming in or going out of it. However, this doesn't prevent nature from creating "local order". I'm sick of answering this question, so I'll refer you to some websites:

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-second-law

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/10/entropy-and-evolution/[url]

 

[Smidlee]

1. Evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life. The theory is starts after we already have life. Abiogenesis doesn't fall under Darwin's theory, which is a theory about speciation, not the origins of life as whole. You'll have to find another theory to argue with for the appearance of the first genetic material.

2. Species are not actually getting more complex in a scientific sense. A king crab has 208 chromosomes, and humans have 46. Does this mean that the crab is more genetically complex and advanced than a human?

Often it requires more technology to make stuff smaller or use less space. It's the same with more chromosomes doesn't mean more complexity.

New genetic material appears often because of mutation.

This is the very thing that needs to be proven. That is mutations leads to serious changes in body plans. There are good reason this is not the case. There is no doubt mutation can make some tweaks and fine tuning just like a "trial and error" computer program.

In a twenty year time span there are approximately 4.4 x 10-8 mutations per base pair in nuclear DNA. Given that the average human genome has about 6.6 billion base pairs, that means we have an average of 227 mutations in each individual in one generation. Essentially, each child has, on average, 227 units of information that did not come from either one of their parents.

Mutations are linked with the aging process yet evolutionist somehow thinks these same kind of mutations pass on from generation to generation doesn't "age" the human race as a whole. ( Yes, there are some geneticists who admits we are inferior to cavemen.)

3. Once again, evolution can't answer questions about the origin of the first genetic material.

evolution fails to answer the origins of any novelity. Evolution seems to on work on that which already existed.

4. You don't have to take a course in physics to know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is in reference the entirety of a closed or isolated system. In other words, a system that has nothing coming in or going out of it. However, this doesn't prevent nature from creating "local order". I'm sick of answering this question, so I'll refer you to some websites:

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does thermodynamics disprove evolution? | BioLogos

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/...ng that can create new information is a mind)

 

[KTskater]

Often it requires more technology to make stuff smaller or use less space. It's the same with more chromosomes doesn't mean more complexity.

Indeed. So, by what criteria would you determine whether an organism is more or less advanced than another genetically?

This is the very thing that needs to be proven. That is mutations leads to serious changes in body plans. There are good reason this is not the case. There is no doubt mutation can make some tweaks and fine tuning just like a "trial and error" computer program.

You have to understand that these mutations accumulate over billions of years. 227 every 20 years or show won't show a huge difference in a couple thousand years, but over a million significant changes arise. We see this in the fossil record. We're also starting to be able to prove it with genetics as well, but that is still a relatively young science with regard to ancient populations.

Mutations are linked with the aging process yet evolutionist somehow thinks these same kind of mutations pass on from generation to generation doesn't "age" the human race as a whole. ( Yes, there are some geneticists who admits we are inferior to cavemen.)

Two things:
1)The fact that you use the term "cavemen" shows that you've not really researched this. There are no "cavemen." There are, however, different species within the Homo genus. There are the Neanderthal (which I assume is what you mean by cavemen), which were cold adapted hominins that lived in Europe and coexisted with anatomically modern Homo sapiens. These guys are believed to have evolved from Homo heidelbergensis. Humans either all evolved from Homo erectus in Africa, or independently from local Homo erectus groups in Europe, Asia and Africa. Genetics support the hypothesis that we involved as a group in Africa and then spread out.
We have both the human and Neanderthal genomes. We probably interbred with the Neanderthal, which is why many humans of European decent have Neanderthal DNA. I have a professor with whom I'm very close and who is a molecular anthropologist. She does work with ancient DNA, so I'd like to know what geneticist says that Homo sapiens are inferior to "cavemen" genetically? And once again, by what criteria you determine inferiority or superiority.
2) Mutations can occur any time DNA is replicated. We see this in older people because more replications have taken place, so the chance of mutation is higher. However, mutations can occur at any point during your life time, even during fetal development. The the "aging" effect that you see (wrinkled skin, weak bones...etc) have more to do with wear and tear than DNA mutations. Mutations don't make DNA "old".

evolution fails to answer the origins of any novelity. Evolution seems to on work on that which already existed.

Not so. I can grab a dozen specimens from my university's bio-anthropology lab and show you how we developed the ability to walk upright in a few easy stages. I can show you how brain size increased gradually over time. I can point to when we lost our divergent toe. When we started using tools...etc. All of these are novelties.
I don't really deal with much outside of primates and human evolution, because that's not my field of study.

The problem with the second law is it's effect on matter and energy. Since all known information either stored with matter or energy then information will be lost with time. This is the opposite what evolution requires. Thus just as the laws of thermodynamics explains why walls fall down and cars turns to rust also explains the lost of information that's in the form of matter or energy. (the one thing that can create new information is a mind)

Why do you believe that mind is exempt from the 2nd Law? Is it not simply electrical impulses? Physiologically, your movements, thoughts and feelings are simply the changes in action potentials generated by the amount of sodium or potassium ions present. As far as I can tell, the brain is matter (cells, tissues...etc) and energy (electricity, metabolism).

 

[KTskater]

Here are some peer reviewed articles that show evolution producing new information as well as new abilities in an organism.
Some are free to view on the internet, others are not. I can't post the whole articles legally, however, I will post the information and if you should be able to access them at a university library for free, or online for a fee.

New abilities generated through genetic evolution:
Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC167468/pdf/612020.pdf

New genetic material:
Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.

Gain of d-Alanyl-d-lactate or d-Lactyl-d-alanine Synthetase Activities in Three Active-Site Mutants of the Escherichia coli d-Alanyl-d-alanine Ligase B† - Biochemistry (ACS Publications) (Not free)

Increased genetic material:
Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1013783029921

 

[FrozenOne]

Evolution is so accurate that for it to be false a lot of the observations in biology, genetics and palentology wouldn't make sense. It's like having a puzzle with thousands of clues and only one answer, and the answer which best fits is evolution. If creationism explained the data the best then that's what the scientific community would stand behind in an UNBIASED way.

Evolution isn't a lie, and it's not meant to be part of a biased agenda. Science doesn't seek to disprove God, although some extremists like Richard Dawkins does. Science just seeks to find the truth after looking at ALL evidence.

Creationists on the other hand don't do that, and the ones who refer to science aren't using scientific methodology. Scientific methodology demands that you look at all information in an unbiased way. What creationists are doing is adopting a position "I believe God created us the way we are and we didn't evolve into what we are" and then ONLY refer to arguements which support this claim, whilst automatically refute all the countless observations which support evolution.

Not meant to be biased? Sure as an ideal of science, in practice though it is not unbiased. As human beings, scientists put their bias in science all the time mostly without even realizing it.

Most creationists will admit they are biased to a Biblical world view. To argue creationist theories are not viable because their method isn't exactly the same as evolutionary thinking science is not an honest course of thought. Creationists can and will use good science whenever possible to back up their opinions and theories. Just because a scientist is a creationist doesn't mean logic and scientific method just haphazardly flies out the window. Does it look a little different from the evolutionary course of thought, sure.

Also in comparing the two, you need to come at it as if in a court of law, and the jury is hearing the evidence of both sides of a crime scene. It is just that the prosecution has about 99% of the lawyers on its side, evolution. Not only do they give their case, but then they turn to the judge and jury saying don't listen to the defense, they aren't lawyers like us. Question is, how many on the jury will believe the 1%er's defense has a viable case to make after the bully pulpit of mainstream science?

I hope I haven't ranted too much, after all is said, a person who is saved by Grace in Christ Jesus is still saved at the end of the day. This is a creation-evolution thread after all, where the discussion of ideas is encouraged. Well at least I hope so.

 

[Smidlee]

Two things:
1)The fact that you use the term "cavemen" shows that you've not really researched this. There are no "cavemen."

I agree as I was only using the term from the scientist.

2) Mutations can occur any time DNA is replicated. We see this in older people because more replications have taken place, so the chance of mutation is higher. However, mutations can occur at any point during your life time, even during fetal development. The the "aging" effect that you see (wrinkled skin, weak bones...etc) have more to do with wear and tear than DNA mutations. Mutations don't make DNA "old".

From what I've read there is a clear connection between mutations and aging. It's the mutations that causes the cells to break down. Thus mutations are the wear and tear.

Not so. I can grab a dozen specimens from my university's bio-anthropology lab and show you how we developed the ability to walk upright in a few easy stages. I can show you how brain size increased gradually over time. I can point to when we lost our divergent toe. When we started using tools...etc. All of these are novelties.
I don't really deal with much outside of primates and human evolution, because that's not my field of study.

I hope you are not referring to those "bones of contention".

Why do you believe that mind is exempt from the 2nd Law? Is it not simply electrical impulses? Physiologically, your movements, thoughts and feelings are simply the changes in action potentials generated by the amount of sodium or potassium ions present. As far as I can tell, the brain is matter (cells, tissues...etc) and energy (electricity, metabolism).

You tell me. The mechanics of the "brain" clearly is governed by the 2nd law but just how the brain "knows" how to wire itself seems pretty supernatural to me. Wouldn't it be cool to have a computer that's constantly rewiring itself. The human brain has more "switches" than all the computers ,internet, etc. in the world.


******
As far as you examples of "adding information" there is little doubt a "trial and error" search engine (all that mutation plus natural selection is) can do some fine tuning to a program or problem yet there is a limit of how much information can be found even with a supercomputer in billions of years. The fact that scientist knows about this limit is why there looking for another engine to create novelties.

Another thing is bacteria ability to out grow another by mutation works great for single cell organisms yet this is very bad for multi-celluar. In multi-celluar this growth is called a tumor.

 

[KTskater]

I agree as I was only using the term from the scientist.

What scientist refers to ancient Homo as "cavemen" in professional literature? I'd like to know who this is. Perhaps it's just shocking to me since that's unheard of in my field or in related fields like biology or zoology.

From what I've read there is a clear connection between mutations and aging. It's the mutations that causes the cells to break down. Thus mutations are the wear and tear.

I will concede a bit on this point. Mutations can be linked to aging. However, whether or not they cause it is still highly debated. Two other theories of aging (Antagonistic theory and Disposable Soma Theory) exist and are being investigated as well. I've not read up on aging much, so I'm thankful for you bringing this topic up.

After doing a bit more reading, my idea of wear and tear has actually been falsified. Bodies aren't subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because they aren't closed systems (they take in "free" energy from their environment).

However, you misunderstand mutations if you believe they must cause aging. Things like albinism (but not Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome...just to be clear), being polydactylous or having blue eyes do not speed up the aging process.

I hope you are not referring to those "bones of contention".

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure to what you are referring.

You tell me. The mechanics of the "brain" clearly is governed by the 2nd law but just how the brain "knows" how to wire itself seems pretty supernatural to me. Wouldn't it be cool to have a computer that's constantly rewiring itself. The human brain has more "switches" than all the computers ,internet, etc. in the world.

Actually, after doing some more reading, I don't know if the 2nd Law does apply to the brain. It doesn't apply to living things as a whole. Since the brain brings in new energy from the environment it is able to "renew" itself.

I'm not sure what your comments about the brain being more complex than a computer have to do with the discussion of whether it breaks down or not, though.

******

As far as you examples of "adding information" there is little doubt a "trial and error" search engine (all that mutation plus natural selection is) can do some fine tuning to a program or problem yet there is a limit of how much information can be found even with a supercomputer in billions of years. The fact that scientist knows about this limit is why there looking for another engine to create novelties.

Another thing is bacteria ability to out grow another by mutation works great for single cell organisms yet this is very bad for multi-celluar. In multi-celluar this growth is called a tumor.

What scientists are looking for a process outside of evolution to create novelties? And who are you to say that we've reached the limit of the genetic information in the universe yet? If such a limit exists, it's clear that we've not yet reached it.


And the first paper wasn't about bacteria out growing one another, it was about how certain strains had evolved to be able to produce enzymes to degrade nylon. This ability did not exist before. We're not talking about unregulated mitosis (which is what produces tumors).

 

[berachah]

1. Evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life. The theory is starts after we already have life. Abiogenesis doesn't fall under Darwin's theory, which is a theory about speciation, not the origins of life as whole. You'll have to find another theory to argue with for the appearance of the first genetic material.

I'm not the one proposing alternative theories. The Bible states how things began. Evolutionists reject this truth and have come up with evolution as an alternative. I suggest you get your hand on any basic school book to find out exactly what is being taught in this regard. The beginning is always included and seamlessly continues with the theory of evolution up to modern man. How can anyone propose evolution without have an explanation for the beginning of life. And if a 'Christian' should suggest that God created the 1st burst of life which has then evolved, then that should be quite clearly found in the Word.

2. Species are not actually getting more complex in a scientific sense. A king crab has 208 chromosomes, and humans have 46. Does this mean that the crab is more genetically complex and advanced than a human?

According to the theory you believe in, yes! Crabs and pineapples..!! Perhaps the crab evolved from a human?

New genetic material appears often because of mutation. In a twenty year time span there are approximately 4.4 x 10-8 mutations per base pair in nuclear DNA. Given that the average human genome has about 6.6 billion base pairs, that means we have an average of 227 mutations in each individual in one generation. Essentially, each child has, on average, 227 units of information that did not come from either one of their parents.

Mutations are invariably bad and do not offer any value..
Not sure where you found this information but what I do know is that children dont have the same appearance as their parents, but they will certainly be humans and so will their children for the next 4.4 x 10-8 generations.

But let me understand this...the following are all from genetic mutations;
- our sight,taste, hearing, feeling and smelling senses,
- the eyeball, the eye socket, the attached nerve endings thereof, the connection to the brain, the automatic reponses of the body to light,
- our tongue, voice box, knee joints with cartilage, sweat glands, endocrine system, our brain, memory and fingerprints, etc etc etc etc

3. Once again, evolution can't answer questions about the origin of the first genetic material. However, many believe that it was a single cell. Read up on what we know about single celled organisms and you'll find a lot of what this first form of life my have looked like. If a scientist is honest with you, they will tell you that we don't know a lot about what the first cell might have been capable of, but that doesn't disprove the entire theory.

And that's waht so amusing about people who profess to be evolutionists / falsely called scientists. They beat the book of creation down because it doesn't stand up to their veiled scientific analysis, yet they happily stand on evolution that fails in the same way.

Ultimately the evolution theory is as vulnerable as the creation theory and it depends on which spirit one yields to for their doctrinre and belief system.

The fact that evolutionists have hijacked natural selection (which is perfectly in line with the creation model and the only respectable portion of evolution) and tried to make it exclusively part of their doctrine shows the deceipt that creeps through this entire theory. When it gets down to really analyzing what they belief, they glibly say we do not know....

4. You don't have to take a course in physics to know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is in reference the entirety of a closed or isolated system. In other words, a system that has nothing coming in or going out of it. However, this doesn't prevent nature from creating "local order". I'm sick of answering this question, so I'll refer you to some websites:

A Barrier to Evolution
Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy

 

[SkyWriting]

My second thought is that we should be careful when saying the scientific community isn't biased. As someone who spends a good amount of time with graduate students, professors and post-docs, I will tell you that there is plenty of bias within all groups of people. However, the scientific method is not biased. This is why articles go through the peer-review process before publication. This helps to eliminate a biased interpretation of the data and allow other scientists to examine the findings. Furthermore, many scientists will purposefully do the same experiments in order to see if they find the same sort of data. Disproving another scientist's theory gets you recognition and prestige, especially if it's a well established theory. In conclusion, to say that individual scientists or their community is unbiased isn't really a true statement. We simply have checks and balances to make sure those biases don't shine through in our findings.

The "checks and balances" only work to bring published research in line with the average views of the body of scientists. Research that furthers the groups agenda, might be rubber stamped for approval. If I invest my career in a line of research, what happens if someone publishes supporting literature?

Lets let you prove it to you. "Disproving another scientist's theory gets you recognition and prestige, especially if it's a well established theory."

So what do we have here? A well established theory that can be dis-proven. Whaaaaat?. In your example (I'll consider you a knowledgeable expert for the moment) a theory can be well established without being correct. Someone must have rubber stamped this guy's work.

But if you'd like to retract your example, that's fine too.

 

[SkyWriting]

If creationism explained the data the best then that's what the scientific community would stand behind in an UNBIASED way.

Not even possible.
Science can only support repeatable events.
Creation (or miracles) cannot be repeated or forced.
(Except on the personal level, but that's a different topic.)

The real process of science