- Nov 20, 2002
- 6,988
- 328
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The failure of Darwin's theory of evolution can be attributed to four reasons:
1. The fossil record. If evolution is true, then the fossil record must show a continuous span of different types of species. Instead, we have a discrete span. The common response is that we just haven't observed them yet. First of all, this is a faith-based reaction to a fact-based argument. Second of all, we don't have to look for hard-to-find dinosaurs and other big creatures; just find whatever type of fossils commonly occur and go from there. However, we cannot at present assume that the missing links occur; at present we have to accept the fact that they do not exist. If science is to be consistent with itself, it should teach what is known to be true, not what is assumed to be true. So for now, the facts are on our side. 1-0 Creation.
2. Fraudulent evidence. Inventing so-called evidence is a classic sign of failing to admit defeat. The following pieces of evidence for evolution are dead or dying, as excerpted from this website:
3. The principle of spontaneous disorder. Commonly referred to as the Second Law of Thermodynamics within the physical science realm, it is a common fact of life that ordered systems spontaneously break down into chaotic systems. Anything left unattended falls apart. Evolutionists typically rationalize this one with a lengthy thermodynamical discussion about how the earth can dump its energy into outer space, receive it from the sun, etc. Although said situation does not work in favor of the odds of the evolution, this is not the type of disorder that the creationists refer to when they bring up the Second-Law argument. They are referring to logistical and information disorder. Contrary to what evolutionists would have us believe, we do NOT have an infinite amount of time to make order out of chaos. Simply put, I would be more willing to believe that the source code for ChristianForums.com were the result of a random character generator than to believe that life as we know it evolved likewise. Claiming the former would be a grave insult to the site designer(s); claiming the latter would be a grave insult to the Creator. As such, the principle of spontaneous disorder is a fundamental, scientifically accurate one, and arguments against it are rooted in faith and not fact. 3-0 Creation.
4. The Law of Biogenesis. Again, this is a scientific principle. Throughout the history of mankind, life has never been observed to spontaneously arise from non-life. This could be considered to be a corrollary of #3. For example, hundreds of years ago, people believed that dead, rotting meat gave rise to living maggots. Research later showed that flies were coming in and breeding the maggots. The Miller-Urey experiment attempted to show how life can spontaneously evolve from non-life. Chaser showed the flaws of this experiment in the last post on this page of this discussion. So science is reduced to zero evidence to counter the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution has faith-based arguments; creation has science-based arguments. 4-0 Creation.
The verdict: Notice with the exception of #2, these evidences for creation are based on scientific laws, not blind faith and assumptions. I encourage any of you who believe that we believe in creation based on blind faith to consider which school of thought actually works off of blind faith. So what about spin-offs to Darwin's claim?
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
1. The fossil record. If evolution is true, then the fossil record must show a continuous span of different types of species. Instead, we have a discrete span. The common response is that we just haven't observed them yet. First of all, this is a faith-based reaction to a fact-based argument. Second of all, we don't have to look for hard-to-find dinosaurs and other big creatures; just find whatever type of fossils commonly occur and go from there. However, we cannot at present assume that the missing links occur; at present we have to accept the fact that they do not exist. If science is to be consistent with itself, it should teach what is known to be true, not what is assumed to be true. So for now, the facts are on our side. 1-0 Creation.
2. Fraudulent evidence. Inventing so-called evidence is a classic sign of failing to admit defeat. The following pieces of evidence for evolution are dead or dying, as excerpted from this website:
- Piltdown Man--was "the jaw of an orangutan mixed with a human skull"
- Vestigial organs--more than 100 in 1895, less than 10 today
- Homology--a circular argument attempting to define the pathways of evolution
- Human embryos' gills--they become vital organs later in the development process
- Archaeopteryx--is 100% bird, 0% dinosaur.
- The Horse Evolution Diagram--was made in 1879, hardly classifying it as up-to-date. The creatures in it come from different continents. Besides, there are critical differences between each successive specie, implying that many, many (currently non-existent) intermediary species must exist.
- Ota Benga--Talk about evolutionists literally being racists:
- Neanderthal Man--After its initial discovery in 1856, it was hailed as a late-stage missing link in the evolution of man. Modern scientific research shows that we are not ancestors of Neanderthal man. Apparently, Homo heidelbergensis was the common ancestor of the two, but this theory is nothing more than a guess and is liable to change with the next paleontological discovery. Other research says that Neanderthal man was the ancestor of modern-day Europeans.
3. The principle of spontaneous disorder. Commonly referred to as the Second Law of Thermodynamics within the physical science realm, it is a common fact of life that ordered systems spontaneously break down into chaotic systems. Anything left unattended falls apart. Evolutionists typically rationalize this one with a lengthy thermodynamical discussion about how the earth can dump its energy into outer space, receive it from the sun, etc. Although said situation does not work in favor of the odds of the evolution, this is not the type of disorder that the creationists refer to when they bring up the Second-Law argument. They are referring to logistical and information disorder. Contrary to what evolutionists would have us believe, we do NOT have an infinite amount of time to make order out of chaos. Simply put, I would be more willing to believe that the source code for ChristianForums.com were the result of a random character generator than to believe that life as we know it evolved likewise. Claiming the former would be a grave insult to the site designer(s); claiming the latter would be a grave insult to the Creator. As such, the principle of spontaneous disorder is a fundamental, scientifically accurate one, and arguments against it are rooted in faith and not fact. 3-0 Creation.
4. The Law of Biogenesis. Again, this is a scientific principle. Throughout the history of mankind, life has never been observed to spontaneously arise from non-life. This could be considered to be a corrollary of #3. For example, hundreds of years ago, people believed that dead, rotting meat gave rise to living maggots. Research later showed that flies were coming in and breeding the maggots. The Miller-Urey experiment attempted to show how life can spontaneously evolve from non-life. Chaser showed the flaws of this experiment in the last post on this page of this discussion. So science is reduced to zero evidence to counter the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution has faith-based arguments; creation has science-based arguments. 4-0 Creation.
The verdict: Notice with the exception of #2, these evidences for creation are based on scientific laws, not blind faith and assumptions. I encourage any of you who believe that we believe in creation based on blind faith to consider which school of thought actually works off of blind faith. So what about spin-offs to Darwin's claim?
- Punctuated equilibrium: the theory that says that evolution occurred in spurts. That would solve issue #1, but #2, #3, and #4 still work against it; in fact, #3 serves as a double-dose, because the actual time spent in evolution sharply decreases; this makes an impossible situation even more impossible.
- Aliens came and brought us life. This would solve issue #4, but #1, #2, and #3 go unresolved.
- A combination of the two--receiving life from aliens and having it evolve via punctuated equilibrium--hits a brick wall with issues #2 and #3.
- Theistic, Darwinian evolution. This would solves problems #3 and #4, but #1 and #2 take this theory down.
- Theistic, punctuated equilibrium. At present, I must confess that this is not an argument I can refute on scientific grounds. The only one of the four pieces of evidence that work against it is #2, and it is the weakest of the four. Therefore, at present, this is the only scientifically valid form of evolution that I can perceive. If I find any overwhelming evidence against this, I will give the refutation and resolve to factually propose the only other possible method that explains the formation of life as we know it: Creationism.
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
- The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
- The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
- Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
- The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
- Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
- Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
- The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
- Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
- Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.
