I would be pleased as can be to see this in a higher profile area, but I realize it belongs here so I have started it in the appropriate place. This was requested by a few members who started a thread under the General USA Chat. It should be known that Zhukov has given me flak unnecessarily in the past and will no doubt try to do the same again. This post is going to start at and add to the stuff from the previous topic "Evolution vs. Creationism". --------------- The test of a theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Evolution is not a good theory. It is required to be reasonable, right, and scientifically provable. Can these following questions then, be scientifically proven? Are the answers reasonable? Are the answers RIGHT? -How did matter get so perfectly organized? -Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? -When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? -When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? -With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? -Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? -Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) -When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. -How did thought evolve? -Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true? The credibility of Jesus is at stake. He said the creation of Adam was "the beginning" (Matt. 19:4). Evolution and creation represent views that are exact opposites: One of them is wrong Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible. The start of the "proof" for evolution goes directly to one thing: fossils. Fossils depend on DATING. The age of the Earth, the age of fossils, rocks and stars all provide data to set the tone for what can be proven "possible", not PROBABLE or PROVEN FACTUAL. As such, as stated in the other thread, dating doesn't work http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5077&highlight=dating and Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we dont have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)? Quotes from other scientists: "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist]. "It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist]. "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."?*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. "When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."?*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159. "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."?*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197. "The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research?paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology?has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327. "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8 "I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."?*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981). "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327. Exodus 20:11 : "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." A physicist at Sandia National Laboratory, Dr. Russell Humphreys set out to solve the Big Bang vs. Bible as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe. All modern models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are put into Einstein's general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location. if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a "man on the street", a brilliant physicist, or a theologian. The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. 1. The Earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the Earth may also be located near the center - perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. 2. The universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out". Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1, 2 Sam. 22:10, Psalm 144:5, Ezekiel 1:22, Isaiah 48:13, Job 26:7, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 51:13, Job 37:18, Isaiah 44:24, Jer. 51:15, Psalm 18:9, Isaiah 45:12. 3. The universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are placed into the currently accepted formulas of physics, we find that we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location. The time dilation effect would be magnified immensely as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones. Einstein rejected the idea that Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true." -Joseph Schwartz, Einstein for Beginners, Pantheon Books, New York, p.31. The most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein's work has shown to be entirely possible. A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys work, can be found in his book. -Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994.