keyarch said:
Very true! They also want us to abandon all logic and common sense.
They remind me of the Catholic clerics who wanted the Bible all to themselves so they could just tell everyone what it said. Tyndal was the man who translated something like 85% of what came to be the King James Version. He said to clerics in England once that if he had his way a plowboy would know more about the Bible then they did. He spent the rest of his life facing persecution and eventually ended up being burned at the stake. We have something simular in modern science only the clerics are wearing lab coats and suits.
On one hand they say that evolution is only a process that occurs after life existed by processes of selection, but then by necessity have to go back to the origin of life in which selection cant occur without some mechanism for replication.
That's right and not only does there have to be a change in the DNA it in fact has to be written and revised. I must also be inheritable and produce a selective advantage.
Now, with all their knowledge and ability to subject chemicals to whatever conditions they want, I have yet to read where they have really created organic life (that is replicating) from non-life. But, they would have us believe that it all came about by natural forces, and that those blind forces influenced life forms to achieve what we see now in nature with all its beauty, diversity and complexity.
Don't you think for a second that they are not aware of this fact of science. Dr. Periannan Senapathy head a biotech company and does cutting edge research in bioenginering. Check out this statement:
Senapathy's search for the origin of the first life on earth from inanimate matter led him to solve a more interesting and central problem in biology-the origin and diversity of life on earth. During his graduate work and initial post-doc research, he was a staunch disciple of Darwin's theory of evolution. Having absolutely no tinge of doubt that the model of evolution was the answer to the question of the diversity of living forms on earth, Senapathy got intensely interested on the question of the origin of life itself on earth where there was no life at all. He took a molecular biological approach of asking how the genes and the genome of the first living cell-thought to be a bacterium like cell-could have originated from the random primordial DNA material that could have been synthesized by natural chemical means in the primordial pond on the primitive earth. With his computer programming expertise that he acquired for finding answers to these questions, he analyzed random DNA sequences and the possible genes that could originate from them for protein coding sequences.
After extensive analyses, astonishing to him, he solved the problem of the origin of first living cell on earth-that it was not the bacterium like cell that was the very first life on earth but the eukaryotic cells with nucleus and other paraphernalia and all of their complexity. This finding showed that the branching model of evolution was not necessary to explain the diversity of living forms on earth, and, in fact, that it was basically incorrect. He could show that the same mechanisms that lead to the genome of one eukaryotic cell could lead to the genomes of zygotic cells of many different multicellular organisms. He formulated a new model for explaining the multiple and simultaneous origins of diverse and unique organisms on earth from a given primordial pond-the model of parallel origin of genomes from a common pool of genes. It took him many more years to complete the research and publish all his findings in a book titled Independent Birth of Organisms in 1994 (Genome Press).
Dr. Periannan Senapathy
Darwinian evolution does not work and he began moving forward when he finally came to the conclusion that the cells did not progressively accumulate characteristics from simple bacteria to fully developed eukaryotic cells. What he is in effect saying is that the eukaryotic cells were fully formed all at once.
The following link provides articles where they think they have proven the origin of life from non-life, but it falls into the category of the jargon that you mention, and I would think that if any of them were a proven system, that the mass media would have widely publicized it since they tend to be backed by sources that promote evolution.
You might think I have lost my mind but actually evolution in general and natural selection in particular prevent descent from a common ancestor. That is why we can't find these transitionals every where we look because these changes would not provide a selective advantage.
A prime example is the poster child of transitional fossils, Archaeopteryx. They actually believe that reptiles turned into birds over time. Now what you have to realize is that it has to change from cold to warm blooded, the lungs have to change down to fundamental functions, limbs have to morph into wings...etc. There is just one problem with this, these major changes in the metabolism of successive generations would kill these creatures. If there is no selective advantage then natural selection eliminates them through mass extinction. Like I have said, they want to supposed a process of change that their own science tells us is impossible.
Keep in mind, that if any of these fossils are found in upper sediments and with tools etc., that they are descendants of Noahs family that came off the ark. Pre-flood humans were buried deeper, or rotted in the waters after a year, and would not be found in the state that theyre in. Even that one that was found buried in ice high on a mountain top was not there because he was running away from the flood waters. The waters would have melted any ice and he would have rotted, and the ice age occurred after the flood.
Anyway, have fun studying the issue.
Now that is interesting, I need to think that one over and get back to you. I haven't spent a lot of time on geology but maybe it's time for me to.
