• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Proof For Evolution (?)

Jon

<marquee behavior=scroll direction=left scrollamou
Jan 28, 2003
397
3
36
Visit site
✟23,054.00
Faith
Christian
It is a remarkable fact that the basis of evolutionary theory was destroyed by seven scientific research findings,--before Charles Darwin first published the theory.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was another genuine scientist. In the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous 1861 experiment, in which he <B>disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Life cannot arise from non-living materials. </B>This experiment was very important; for, up to that time, a majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. (They thought that if a pile of old clothes were left in a corner, it would breed mice! The proof was that, upon later returning to the clothes, mice would frequently be found there.) Pasteur concluded from his experiment that only God could create living creatures. But modern evolutionary theory continues to be based on the out-dated theory disproved by Pasteur: spontaneous generation (life arises from non-life). Why? Because it is the only real basis on which evolution could occur. As Adams notes, "With spontaneous generation discredited [by Pasteur], biologists were left with no theory of the origin of life at all" (J. Edison Adams, Plants: An Introduction to Modern Biology, 1967, p. 585).

&nbsp;

Carl Linn (Carolus Linnaeus, 1707-1778) was a scientist who classified immense numbers of living organisms. An earnest creationist, he clearly saw that there were no halfway species. <B>All plant and animal species were definite categories, separate from one another. </B>Variation was possible within a kind, and there were many sub-species. But there were no crossovers from one kind to another (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 276).

&nbsp;

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a creationist who lived and worked near Brunn (now Brno), Czechoslovakia. He was a science and math teacher. Unlike the theorists, Mendel was a true scientist. He bred garden peas and studied the results of crossing various varieties. Beginning his work in 1856, he concluded it within eight years. In 1865, he reported his research in the Journal of the Brunn Society for the Study of Natural Science. The journal was distributed to 120 libraries in Europe, England, and America. Yet his research was totally ignored by the scientific community until it was rediscovered in 1900 (R.A. Fisher, "Has Mendel’s Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1936). His experiments clearly showed that one species could not transmute into another one. <B>A genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. Mendel’s work laid the basis for modern genetics, and his discoveries effectively destroyed the basis for species evolution </B>(Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64).

These are parts of:

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&amp;specific=29

Read these over and tell me........
 

LadyShea

Humanist
Aug 29, 2002
1,216
5
56
Nevada
Visit site
✟1,749.00
Faith
Atheist
Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with abiogenesis and neither have anything to do with biological evolution.

And maybe you could read Mendel's work yourself instead of taking that fraud Hovind's word for what his conclusions were.

And wow...Carolus Linnaeus, 1707-1778...of course we have had no fossil finds in the last 250 years.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
56
Visit site
✟37,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ

This is a perfect example of why Mr. Hovind has zero credibility in both the realm of science and more and more even in the realm of creation ministry.

Here he is saying that species cannot arise from evolution based on early genetic work over 100 years old. At the time speciation was though not to be possible, but of course current scientific evidence shows us that it does. Does hovind update his website to reflect this? Nope.

The generation of new species of both plants and animals has been observed in the wild and in the lab, yet he continues to spout this type of nonesense.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Of course one of his "dinosaur" pictures has also been shown beyond a reasonale doubt to be a shark, but that hasn't motivated him to change his website or materials either.

For someone who spouts so often about bad evidence, he should update his lists more often.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
43
Visit site
✟43,817.00
Faith
Taoist
We also had no DNA evidence when Darwin was alive.

in the last 10 years or so we have gained Lots and Lots of evidence FOR Evolution. Let alone since Darwin was alive.

 
Upvote 0

PhantomLlama

Prism Ranger
Feb 25, 2003
1,813
60
39
Birmingham
Visit site
✟32,258.00
Faith
Atheist
1st April 2003 at 03:04 AM Jon said this in Post #1

It is a remarkable fact that the basis of evolutionary theory was destroyed by seven scientific research findings,--before Charles Darwin first published the theory.

This should be good...


Irrelevant. The TOE deals with how life changes once it exists, not how it came to be. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO SAY THIS!


Lets see. That's 250 years old, and also all it says is that in living organisms there are no species halfway between them and they do not cross over. There will of course not be halfway species, as all the TOE says is that they had a common ancestor. This ancestor will not be alive today as it was outcompeted for food by its offspring. The fact that they do not cross over is irrelevant. It is part of the standard definition of species.


As has been detailed above, this is no longer valid. I never heard about him finding a magic barrier in anything I have read about him, and if he did all it shows is that he was wrong as new research has achieved speciation.


It is good that you have taken the scientific method to heart and have also presented the falsifying evidence for your ideas.
 
Upvote 0

LadyShea

Humanist
Aug 29, 2002
1,216
5
56
Nevada
Visit site
✟1,749.00
Faith
Atheist
1st April 2003 at 07:16 AM webboffin said this in Post #6

Why is it that when parts of evolution are refuted from the standard model the scientist/biologist are always made to be irrelevant and non credible?


Because they are not refutations in the scientific sense...they are the mental gymnastics used to try to make the actual observable facts fit with the Genesis story.

&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0