Evolution is false

[rmwilliamsll]

I'm still waiting to find out where the Bible talks about DNA.

me too.

God could have given each kind a different genetic code mapping DNA codons to tRNA and thereby demonstrated that kinds were uniquely and miraculously created. so it is not as if kinds were not a possibility. but afaik, there is no "DNA Code Barrier" to be found anywhere, either in science nor in the KJV. but perhaps it is in the Defender's Study Bible by H.Morris.....

 

[Aron-Ra]

I am reading more into evolution actually, and I've read what evolution is about for the mostpart, at the end of the day, evolution does not make any sense, I posted Russ Miller's website for a good reason,

No you didn't. I debated Russ a couple years ago. He's an idiot desperatate to use his moronic radio show to make more of his own kind. He has no idea what he's talking about ever. I won't tell you not to listen to him, but I would advise you to listen to him the same way you would listen to a used car salesman, a politician, or an army recruiter. Because the only real difference between them and him is that a few of the things they say might be correct.

 

[Split Rock]

Obviously there are more differences than similarites between sharks and whales, but by using the evolutionary observation, we should be able to say that both whales and sharks came from a common ancestor, or a whaleshark,

Here is a photo of a whaleshark. LOL!
http://www.maneatingsharks.com/Images/Whale/oki1.jpg

this is not only a perfect example, but it's exactly what evolution teaches about humans, let's go in comparison with apes in contrast with humans:

1) We both have a pair of nostrils, frontward facing eyes, ears, and lips.

2) We both have a pair of arms and legs.

That's the best you can do?

Differences?
1) Apes don't have vocal cords and rely on sign language to communicate with humans.

WRONG. Apes have vocal cords. We haven't learned their way of communicating yet.

2) Apes don't have eyebrows.

I'll assume this is a joke.

3) Apes have shorter legs and longer arms, we have shorter arms and longer legs.

WOW. Apes have longer arms than us!

4) Apes don't have opposible thumbs, apes have hand-like feet.

WRONG! Apes have opposable thumbs.

5) Apes have much smaller sexual reproducing organs than humans do, the average human sized penis when erect measures 5-7 inches long, a gorilla for instance is only 1 inch!

WOW WOW! Apes' penises are smaller!!

6) Apes "can't" stand up right because they have less vertebrate than we do (coincedentally this becomes an intervention for the studies of evolution, go figure.)

WRONG! Our spine is curved. Our spine connects to our skull at the bottom, not the rear. Our pelvis is shaped differently.

7) Apes are much more hairier than we are, apes have different hair than we do, apes have different blood types than we do (we can't transfer organs to an ape like we can to other humans with racial distinctions, the AIDS virus came from chimp's blood.)

WRONG! Even if it wasn't it would just be another WOW.

Many more differences than similarities, and it is just the same by saying whales and sharks came from a whaleshark as it is to say humans and apes came from a common ancestor, it is, quite frankly, a pitiful delusion that is being taught as scientifically coherent.

The only thing "pitiful" is this O.P.

 

[crimsondeath]

wow monkeys dont have eybrows evolution is wrong. oh noes all that research was debunked by some hairless eyebrow apes.

 

[Split Rock]

No you didn't. I debated Russ a couple years ago. He's an idiot desperatate to use his moronic radio show to make more of his own kind. He has no idea what he's talking about ever. I won't tell you not to listen to him, but I would advise you to listen to him the same way you would listen to a used car salesman, a politician, or an army recruiter. Because the only real difference between them and him is that a few of the things they say might be correct.

I watched one of his videos on evolution at:
http://creationministries.org/seminars.asp#sem
Wow.... he makes Kent Hovind look like a real biologist!

A few choice tidbits from the first video (Facts vs. Evolution):

1. The made-up law of "Gene Depletion" means that genetic information is only reshuffled or lost.. never increased.

2. The made-up "DNA Code Barrier" prevents dogs from giving birth to a pineapple.

3. The made-up law of "Biogenesis" means we didn't come from a rock (Hovind!!!)

4. 99% of mutations Kill !!! (I guess we are all dead).

5. Bacterial anti-penicillin enzyme mutations are not examples of a beneficial mutation because they only help bacteria in a patient receiving penicillin in a hospital.

6. Mutation is "anti-evolution."

7. Human hemoglobin is closest in sequence to Root Nodule hemoglobin, (I didn't know plant roots could bleed!)

 

[Valkhorn]

In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective, investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of impartial reporting.

I saw the entire series. Nothing but the facts there. In fact it even discussed Creationism in the part titled "What About God?" and had plenty of CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS who accepted Evolution.

You obviously didn't see it.

The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is "a science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists in the world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.

Because it is accepted by a vast majority of scientists and there isn't any real strong evidence or argument against it outside of "the bible says its wrong".

You clearly did not see the series.

The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists" but bona fide scientists.

Because there aren't any. The only ones who CLAIM to be scientists often have very poor or religiously based arguments. People like Behe and Dembski all the way to Duane Gish do not have any valid scientific argument.

To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to issue a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled to go to air. Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them.

Who is a proponent of the ID movement (which is not scientific) and is a Chemist and not a Biologist. He's also a member of the DI - a very unscientific organization.

Very impartial.

He encouraged open public debate of Darwin’s theory:

There's nothing wrong with open debate, but you need to have FACTS to base up your claim. Simply saying "Its so complex that we can't understand it and therefore god did it" is just intellectual laziness.

So what if he's a chemist. He's not a Biologist.

 

[Aegist]

What upsets me the most about the people who post these sorts of things, is the facts that they are ultimately lying. They present this 'information', the claims of "Apes don't have vocal cords and rely on sign language to communicate with humans." and "Apes don't have eyebrows." and so on, and they present it as if they actually know what they are talking about.

that entire article (and many others like it) are always presented with such absolute conviction which implies the Authors actually have knowledge of the field.

Either they are deceiving people in this regard, or they do have knowledge of the field and they are instead lying about the facts.

I believe that in this instance the original authour was just grossly ignorant.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I watched one of his videos on evolution at:
http://creationministries.org/seminars.asp#sem
Wow.... he makes Kent Hovind look like a real biologist!

A few choice tidbits from the first video (Facts vs. Evolution):

1. The made-up law of "Gene Depletion" means that genetic information is only reshuffled or lost.. never increased.

2. The made-up "DNA Code Barrier" prevents dogs from giving birth to a pineapple.

3. The made-up law of "Biogenesis" means we didn't come from a rock (Hovind!!!)

4. 99% of mutations Kill !!! (I guess we are all dead).

5. Bacterial anti-penicillin enzyme mutations are not examples of a beneficial mutation because they only help bacteria in a patient receiving penicillin in a hospital.

6. Mutation is "anti-evolution."

7. Human hemoglobin is closest in sequence to Root Nodule hemoglobin, (I didn't know plant roots could bleed!)

Bewildering inanity indeed! And creationism is chocker-block full of loonies like him!

In fact, I would go so far as to bet that there has never been a single completely honest argument for Biblical creationism as a general conclusion over the scientific perspective; not one which also contests the scientific evidence on specific points, and which was published by any credible proponant of evangelical creationism. That's a two part challenge, because (1) the creationist movement has never produced any such document with any substance which did not also include known falsehoods of some sort, and (2) there has never been a single credible proponant of evangelical creationism anywhere ever. Every last one of them who has ever published antievolutionary rhetoric has revealed inexcuseable ignorance of the very topics where they claim expertise, as well as in the form and function of science itself, and even theology too! Or they have distorted data, relied on logical fallacies, emotional pleas, parody, and sensationalist propaganda, or purposefully misrepresented the arguments they pretend to refute.

 

[Aegist]

Bewildering inanity indeed! And creationism is chocker-block full of loonies like him!

In fact, I would go so far as to bet that there has never been a single completely honest argument for Biblical creationism as a general conclusion over the scientific perspective; not one which also contests the scientific evidence on specific points, and which was published by any credible proponant of evangelical creationism. That's a two part challenge, because (1) the creationist movement has never produced any such document with any substance which did not also include known falsehoods of some sort, and (2) there has never been a single credible proponant of evangelical creationism anywhere ever. Every last one of them who has ever published antievolutionary rhetoric has revealed inexcuseable ignorance of the very topics where they claim expertise, as well as in the form and function of science itself, and even theology too! Or they have distorted data, relied on logical fallacies, emotional pleas, parody, and sensationalist propaganda, or purposefully misrepresented the arguments they pretend to refute.

That is my extensive experience in dealing with creationists precisely!

 

[Herman Hedning]

wow monkeys dont have eybrows evolution is wrong. oh noes all that research was debunked by some hairless eyebrow apes.

Perhaps someone has been reading this classic thread: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16905565

 

[Split Rock]

Bewildering inanity indeed! And creationism is chocker-block full of loonies like him!

But is he really a loonie? I think he is actually smart enough to know how to cherry-pick his "information" only from other creationists and how to win by Hook or by Crook. He also impressed me as a pretty good speaker.

In fact, I would go so far as to bet that there has never been a single completely honest argument for Biblical creationism as a general conclusion over the scientific perspective; not one which also contests the scientific evidence on specific points, and which was published by any credible proponant of evangelical creationism.

Too true. I have some respect for those few creationists who admit that their argument with evolution is based on their religious beliefs, and not on any supposed problems with the theory.

Every last one of them who has ever published antievolutionary rhetoric has revealed inexcuseable ignorance of the very topics where they claim expertise, as well as in the form and function of science itself, and even theology too!

It amazes me how poorly most creationists understand the history of the book they worship as a god.

Or they have distorted data, relied on logical fallacies, emotional pleas, parody, and sensationalist propaganda, or purposefully misrepresented the arguments they pretend to refute.

Parody is a big one for them. They know you can win an argument if you made the opposing position look silly. In the video I watched, Russ used the example of the old "jump frog jump" joke (where scientists cut off the legs of a frog to see how it affects how far they can jump. When the last leg is cut off, they conclude it makes the frog deaf, since it doesn't jump at all) to show just how stupid scientists are and to get a cheap laugh from the audience.

Others like D. Gish and Hovind do the same. Gish for example, shows his audience a cartoon of a whale with four legs sticking out of its belly and jokes about how silly the supposed "whale intermediate" looks. This ignores the fact that we know what they looked like because we have found their fossils in the geological record, as predicted by evolution. His audience is never informed of these facts, of course.

 

[Contracelsus]

It amazes me how poorly most creationists understand the history of the book they worship as a god.

I have noted that a lot lately, especially in conversations with the poster called "Dad". His lack of knowledge of even the most pivotal characters in the early Church is astonishing, but further he is so dismissive of them. When I brought up Origen, the first real theologian in the Christian church he dismissed him with "Never heard of the whiner before, sounds like a bit of a zero to me anyhow."

He seems so amazingly proud of his lack of knowledge of his own faith's history. If he were to have shot back how Origen's later followers had drifted into heresy that'd be one thing, but he doesn't even respond in a reasoned way, just blows it off.

Of course science is going to get blown off even moreso I suppose.

Parody is a big one for them. They know you can win an argument if you made the opposing position look silly. In the video I watched, Russ used the example of the old "jump frog jump" joke (where scientists cut off the legs of a frog to see how it affects how far they can jump. When the last leg is cut off, they conclude it makes the frog deaf, since it doesn't jump at all) to show just how stupid scientists are and to get a cheap laugh from the audience.

I actually like the story. But sadly some take it as an indictment of science. Parody is OK, but it is mere polemic and not valid information.

Others like D. Gish ... His audience is never informed of these facts, of course.

You know, when I make a statement about the Bible I actually feel bad for having said it if it is soundly proven wrong, but I don't see creationists-literalists ever showing anything like this "conscience". I should think conscience would be a hallmark of the Christ-like life.

I hope humility would be the first of the virtues. If you "know" God then you can't help but be humble.

 

[Aegist]

I should think conscience would be a hallmark of the Christ-like life.

I hope humility would be the first of the virtues. If you "know" God then you can't help but be humble.

Same. I don't know how these guys can live with themselves. Either as christians, or as human beings. And that is what I wish the public could see. People like Hovind et al are blatently lying, or carefully plying their ignorance (hear no evil see no evil style) to their financial advantage. They should feel guilty as anything, but they seem to keep on going and doing it over and over again.

If only the people could see the hypocrasy!