New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

How on earth would that disprove evolution?

I didn't say that,but to explain your theory you have to disregard an easy way to identfy an animal.

Example, would you say my Canidae or my dog ?


If you want to be specific;
Would you say my canine lupus or my grey wolf ?

It is just plain silly the word game your side plays ,and thats exactly how the game is played .That is how they try to build support for their theory,it's obvious to the ones that use ANY KIND of common sense.

Species name exist generally because the word for 'dog,' for example, isn't the same word in another language. Species name exist to give universality to the names. I don't see what on earth this has to do with evolution at all.

By the way, you wouldn't say Canidae for dog, because that's the family name, not the species name.

Well i don't speak any other language but english and you just did a very poor job spinning.

You know you were wrong but you still had to defend your rediculous comment. In a word you're being an Ideologue. I like you but you need to be honest with yourself and quit putting your theory before honesty you come off looking silly when you do that.

 

[Woyzeck]

I didn't say that,but to explain your theory you have to disregard an easy way to identfy an animal.

Example, would you say my Canidae or my dog ?


If you want to be specific;
Would you say my canine lupus or my grey wolf ?

It is just plain silly the word game your side plays ,and thats exactly how the game is played .That is how they try to build support for their theory,it's obvious to the ones that use ANY KIND of common sense.

Species name exist generally because the word for 'dog,' for example, isn't the same word in another language. Species name exist to give universality to the names. I don't see what on earth this has to do with evolution at all.

By the way, you wouldn't say Canidae for dog, because that's the family name, not the species name.

Well i don't speak any other language but english and you just did a very poor job spinning.

You know you were wrong but you still had to defend your rediculous comment. In a word you're being an Ideologue. I like you but you need to be honest with yourself and quit putting your theory before honesty you come off looking silly when you do that.

So thanks for not actually answering my post and taking us on a pointless detour. The only thing you proved was your lack of knowledge of science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Species name exist generally because the word for 'dog,' for example, isn't the same word in another language. Species name exist to give universality to the names. I don't see what on earth this has to do with evolution at all.

By the way, you wouldn't say Canidae for dog, because that's the family name, not the species name.

Well i don't speak any other language but english and you just did a very poor job spinning.

You know you were wrong but you still had to defend your rediculous comment. In a word you're being an Ideologue. I like you but you need to be honest with yourself and quit putting your theory before honesty you come off looking silly when you do that.

So thanks for not actually answering my post and taking us on a pointless detour. The only thing you proved was your lack of knowledge of science.

Yeah because that detour threw you off your bike.

How do i not understand science ? you have made this comment several times please explain yourself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I guess it started sinking in to them that an intelligent designer makes more sense then does the random chance through mutations do, about lifes process.

Not to mention the evdence does support intelligent design and not Neo darwinism, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I guess it started sinking in to them that an intelligent designer makes more sense then does the random chance through mutations do, about lifes process.

Not to mention the evdence does support intelligent design and not Neo darwinism, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

Correct the only reason 99% of scientists go by darwinism is because of their emotional insecurity about admitting they're wrong.




Sounds like a perfectly reasonable conclusion to me..............................

 

[Douger]

I believe !

 

[Youwerecreated]

I guess it started sinking in to them that an intelligent designer makes more sense then does the random chance through mutations do, about lifes process.

Not to mention the evdence does support intelligent design and not Neo darwinism, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

Correct the only reason 99% of scientists go by darwinism is because of their emotional insecurity about admitting they're wrong.




Sounds like a perfectly reasonable conclusion to me..............................

When you have been taught this nonsense all through school, many are bound to believe it even when it goes against logic.

 

[Woyzeck]

Well i don't speak any other language but english and you just did a very poor job spinning.

You know you were wrong but you still had to defend your rediculous comment. In a word you're being an Ideologue. I like you but you need to be honest with yourself and quit putting your theory before honesty you come off looking silly when you do that.

So thanks for not actually answering my post and taking us on a pointless detour. The only thing you proved was your lack of knowledge of science.

Yeah because that detour threw you off your bike.

How do i not understand science ? you have made this comment several times please explain yourself.

You refuse to use the actual terminology used in science because it's geared towards "word games" that support evolution. You don't seem to understand much about how biology works, you keep blathering on about cross-breeding without a lick of evidence or rebuttal for anything said against it. You don't seem to take stock in scientific experiments unless it's one that proves a point your arguing.

I could go on.

 

[Woyzeck]

I guess it started sinking in to them that an intelligent designer makes more sense then does the random chance through mutations do, about lifes process.

Not to mention the evdence does support intelligent design and not Neo darwinism, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

What evidence supports intelligent design over evolution? What is the scientific, falsifiable tenants of the intelligent design theory?

I really wish you'd stop discounting all the evidence for evolution every five minutes, as if no one's even bothered to link you to stuff.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I believe !

But you can believe your ancestors were apes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So thanks for not actually answering my post and taking us on a pointless detour. The only thing you proved was your lack of knowledge of science.

Yeah because that detour threw you off your bike.

How do i not understand science ? you have made this comment several times please explain yourself.

You refuse to use the actual terminology used in science because it's geared towards "word games" that support evolution. You don't seem to understand much about how biology works, you keep blathering on about cross-breeding without a lick of evidence or rebuttal for anything said against it. You don't seem to take stock in scientific experiments unless it's one that proves a point your arguing.

I could go on.

Don't you get it ? the theory is supported by the terminology,it is a word game. If you take away the terminology you won't believe what they have to go on.
The evidence most certainly don't support it. You tell me what scientific experiment proves the theory viable ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I guess it started sinking in to them that an intelligent designer makes more sense then does the random chance through mutations do, about lifes process.

Not to mention the evdence does support intelligent design and not Neo darwinism, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

What evidence supports intelligent design over evolution? What is the scientific, falsifiable tenants of the intelligent design theory?

I really wish you'd stop discounting all the evidence for evolution every five minutes, as if no one's even bothered to link you to stuff.

All you can show is evidence for Micro-adaptations learn what you're posting.

Are you saying design and intelligence can't be detected ?

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.
1.Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2.Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3.Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4.SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?


Creation model.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."



This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.





"This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto."
"Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."



Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:





The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.



I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

II. Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.





"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."



III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26



"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."

 

[Youwerecreated]

I guess it started sinking in to them that an intelligent designer makes more sense then does the random chance through mutations do, about lifes process.

Not to mention the evdence does support intelligent design and not Neo darwinism, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

What evidence supports intelligent design over evolution? What is the scientific, falsifiable tenants of the intelligent design theory?

I really wish you'd stop discounting all the evidence for evolution every five minutes, as if no one's even bothered to link you to stuff.

Ok,fair enough.

The Giraffe,according to evolutionist they believe that the Giraffe evoled in to a long necked animal so he could eat the leaves on the trees. Now according to the evolutionist, evolution is a long drawn out process.

The Giraffe has a huge heart it could weigh in at about 25 pounds roughly. But the reason the heart is so big because it needed a power heart to pump that blood against gravity up that long neck.

The Giraffe one day realized oh crap, i can eat the leaves on tall trees but i have a problem. If i bend over to drink water all the blood would come rushing to my head and blow my brains out of my ears, so i better evolve something so i can drink.

The Giraffe evolved to where these valves would close off the blood flow so he could bend down to get a drink of water. But the Giraffe while bending over saw a pride of lions coming at him and he suddenly raised his head real fast and ran about three steps and passed out from the lack of oxygen to his brain. When the Giraffe came back to his right mind he said, wow i have to evolve something to where i can raise my head fast so i don't pass out anymore. So the Giraffe did just that, he evolved this little sponge in his brain that would store up this oxygenated blood so when he raised his head quickly he would no longer pass out.

Was this an act of design or an act of random chance through mutations ?

1. First the draft would need to evolve the long neck.

2. Then the giraffe needed to evolve so the valves would close so when it could bend to get a drink.

3. Then the giraffe would need to evolve again to obtain that sponge that would hold oxygenated blood,so the giraffe could quickly pick up it's head and not pass out.

If these things didn't exist at creation of the giraffe there would be no giraffes alive. They would have went extinct, Because it would have starved waiting to grow the long neck to eat the leafs. The giraffe would be extinct waiting to evolve the valves to close off so he could bend to get a drink. The giraffe would have went extinct waiting for that sponge to evolve because he would have passed out when he quickly raised his head. Then the pride of lions would have eaten him.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I guess it started sinking in to them that an intelligent designer makes more sense then does the random chance through mutations do, about lifes process.

Not to mention the evdence does support intelligent design and not Neo darwinism, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

What evidence supports intelligent design over evolution? What is the scientific, falsifiable tenants of the intelligent design theory?

I really wish you'd stop discounting all the evidence for evolution every five minutes, as if no one's even bothered to link you to stuff.

Let's see if you will actually listen to this audio that compares Neo and design.

If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists « Cosmic Fingerprints

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where did you go woyzeck ?

 

[JScott]

Where did you go woyzeck ?

You are not opening the eyes of the blind. You are darkening the world of the ignorant.

 

[HUGGY]

YWC...your personal intellectual maturity is so 16th or 17th century.. Talking down to your superiors isn't holding the high ground...it is standing on no ground.

There is no God...There never was...You have been lied to.

Nobody in this thread is going to attend your little internet sunday school class. Most of us are not amused with your myriad of explanations all based in fantasy.

I picture you sinking quickly in quicksand up over your neck and rather than at least take one or two last clean breaths you are blathering nonsense and going under with your last effort.

I'm truly sorry you have wasted your whole life engaged in this fraud. It isn't too late for you to start thinking for yourself and make the best of what time you have left here on this earth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Still no answers from you guy's, just rhetoric.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where did you go woyzeck ?

You are not opening the eyes of the blind. You are darkening the world of the ignorant.

Oh i am sure some on here realized how absurd the theory is by now.

 

[Montrovant]

Where did you go woyzeck ?

You are not opening the eyes of the blind. You are darkening the world of the ignorant.

Oh i am sure some on here realized how absurd the theory is by now.

I would imagine that no one has changed their opinion (re: evolution being true or not) based on this thread. You highly overrate your debating skills if you think you have convinced anyone evolution is false, or that you have made a compelling argument that there is objective proof that any god exists, let alone the god you believe in.