Darwin vs DNA

[CandySlice]

That is always the atheist's first great lie: that atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist. Of course it is such an assertion. Example: I don't believe in Santa Claus, so I am asserting that SC does not exist. Come on, you can do better than this.

QUOTE=newpolitics;5963090]

Yes, you do, you are asserting something does not exist. You do have to prove it, if you have made the first affirmation. That's the problem with most atheists,etc, want to say God does not exist, and then ask for proof against their affirmation.

Sorry, you are as silly as some of the far right political ethugs on the board.

But believe as you will, it is your right to do so.

I am not asserting god does not exist. I am responding to claims that a god does exist.

Atheism is not the assertion that a god does not exist. It is theists who claim one does exist, and atheists who simply disbelieve that claim. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that atheists believe that no gods exist. I am unsure whether a god exists, but I lack a belief that one does. I am an agnostic atheist.

Atheism: lack of belief in god. That's it. Let's stick to what actually is the case, and not what you wish to be the case. I can keep on repeating this all day, if you are going to continue to get it wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[CandySlice]

That is always the atheist's first great lie: that atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist. Of course it is such an assertion. Example: I don't believe in Santa Claus, so I am asserting that SC does not exist. Come on, you can do better than this.

QUOTE=newpolitics;5963090]

Yes, you do, you are asserting something does not exist. You do have to prove it, if you have made the first affirmation. That's the problem with most atheists,etc, want to say God does not exist, and then ask for proof against their affirmation.

Sorry, you are as silly as some of the far right political ethugs on the board.

But believe as you will, it is your right to do so.

Tick tock, Jake.

I am not asserting god does not exist. I am responding to claims that a god does exist.

Atheism is not the assertion that a god does not exist. It is theists who claim one does exist, and atheists who simply disbelieve that claim. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that atheists believe that no gods exist. I am unsure whether a god exists, but I lack a belief that one does. I am an agnostic atheist.

Atheism: lack of belief in god. That's it. Let's stick to what actually is the case, and not what you wish to be the case. I can keep on repeating this all day, if you are going to continue to get it wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[CandySlice]

That is always the atheist's first great lie: that atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist. Of course it is such an assertion. Example: I don't believe in Santa Claus, so I am asserting that SC does not exist. Come on, you can do better than this.

QUOTE=newpolitics;5963090]

Tick tock, Jake.

I am not asserting god does not exist. I am responding to claims that a god does exist.

Atheism is not the assertion that a god does not exist. It is theists who claim one does exist, and atheists who simply disbelieve that claim. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that atheists believe that no gods exist. I am unsure whether a god exists, but I lack a belief that one does. I am an agnostic atheist.

Atheism: lack of belief in god. That's it. Let's stick to what actually is the case, and not what you wish to be the case. I can keep on repeating this all day, if you are going to continue to get it wrong.

[/QUOTE]

PS. Jake I am not an atheist, nor am I an agnostic, just a person with basic primal questions that shouldn't upset you the way they do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you can't. It's called spamming.

I believe in God, I can't prove it.

You don't believe in God, you can't prove it.

End of discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are the one who appears "upset".

You simply can't carry your premise is all.

Atheism: lack of belief in god. That's it. Let's stick to what actually is the case, and not what you wish to be the case. I can keep on repeating this all day, if you are going to continue to get it wrong.

PS I am not an atheist, nor am I an agnostic, just a person with basic primal questions that shouoldn't upset you the way they do.[/QUOTE]

 

[LOki]

Thank you for displaying in so many words that you can't disprove the existence of God.

You're quite welcome. I just have no idea why it took you so long to understand that.

Perhaps it was due to your "faith" that I was asserting I could disprove the existence of this "God" thing of yours.

It is nice that you asked nice.

It's nice that you finally noticed.

I don't have to prove that God exists to claim it.

What's with the "prove" again? I thought we were past this.

I never said you had to prove that your "God" thing exists to claim it--in matter of verifiable fact, I literally said quite the opposite. Didn't I?

I suspect that your mental disability--i.e. faith--is preventing you from perceiving the actual reality of the situation.

The point is that the Creationist, the IDer, the believer, and the non-believer cannot prove their respective points on it, because empirical data fails on the issue and language, our frame of intellectual reference, cannot even poorly frame the issue. You demonstrated that just now.

Then of course, I also said this:

Beliefs consistent with reality; that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality.​

The Creationist, the IDer, the Believer, and the Non-Believer, in-so-far as they assert the objective validity of faith, simply do not enjoy the benefit of having rational beliefs. Sorry about your luck.

It is what it is.

You're not being entirely honest with me, or yourself, are you? What you're really saying is, "It is what I believe it is, because I believe it is what I believe it is--and you can't prove it's not." Ain't that right faith-boy?

 

[CandySlice]

You are the one who appears "upset".

You simply can't carry your premise is all.

Atheism: lack of belief in god. That's it. Let's stick to what actually is the case, and not what you wish to be the case. I can keep on repeating this all day, if you are going to continue to get it wrong.

PS I am not an atheist, nor am I an agnostic, just a person with basic primal questions that shouoldn't upset you the way they do.

[/QUOTE]

Nice one. Attack what you cannot explain--run when you're caught. Why would I be upset? I don't even have a premise, just questions.

YOU just told us you heard the voice of God but you can't address the next question which is 'what does He sound like' because you just got caught with your dogma down around your ankles.

 

[newpolitics]

So if you do not believe in God, and you can't prove it, then you have faith, a belief system, even if it is as sophomoric as "I don't believe."

OK, we all get that.

Here's an analogy. Does not believing in bigfoot take faith? No. The person who is making that claim that bigfoot does exist has to provide evidence. They have the burden of proof. Until that person does provide evidence, I am justified in suspending the belief that bigfoot is real. In the meanwhile, I am not employing faith while suspending belief, or disbelieving. That's a direct analogy to our discussion.

Christians are claiming an addition to the universe, namely that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being exists, is responsible for creation, both of the universe and of all life, and is interacting with our universe on a constant basis (answering prayers). So far, none of these assertions can be demonstrated at all. You have no evidence for any of this, yet accept this as true. In order to do this you need faith, which, by definition, is believing something without evidence.

Disbelieving this fairytale can not be called faith. It is rational skepticism.

By the way, what exactly would i have faith in, since you claim this? The non-existence of god? That doesn't make logical sense.

 

[LOki]

Here's an interesting bit of rhetoric.

Since I'm not retarded, I won't copy/paste the whole thing in here as some kind of idiotic demand that you read the whole thing.

But I will post the part I liked best:

Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution’s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there’s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a “fraud” like evolution — not when there’s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn’t interested in ideology — only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there’s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they’ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren’t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren’t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and — this is trivial, but true — specialists in Noah’s Ark aren’t in demand by naval architects.

Isn’t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don’t waste their time or their shareholders’ money doing “creation science”? Why don’t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don’t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.​

You really have to wonder why the likes of Youwerecreated--with his craxy "Creation Science" skillz--isn't earning a bajillion $$$ leading the biotech industry into brand new and profitable frontiers.

Naw. Not really.

 

[percysunshine]

Global warming theory is proven fraud. All the liars are still alive.

 

[LOki]

So if you do not believe in God, and you can't prove it, then you have faith, ...

No. It MAY be faith--IF the belief is unfounded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. IF the strength of denial of valid logic and verifiable evidence is the validating criteria of the belief, THEN it is faith.

Otherwise, not so much.

 

[The Irish Ram]

You will know when your time comes as well.

God??? Is that you??

 

[The Irish Ram]

Here's an interesting bit of rhetoric.

Since I'm not retarded, I won't copy/paste the whole thing in here as some kind of idiotic demand that you read the whole thing.

But I will post the part I liked best:

Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution’s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there’s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a “fraud” like evolution — not when there’s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn’t interested in ideology — only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there’s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they’ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren’t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren’t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and — this is trivial, but true — specialists in Noah’s Ark aren’t in demand by naval architects.

Isn’t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don’t waste their time or their shareholders’ money doing “creation science”? Why don’t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don’t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.​

You really have to wonder why the likes of Youwerecreated--with his craxy "Creation Science" skillz--isn't earning a bajillion $$$ leading the biotech industry into brand new and profitable frontiers.

Naw. Not really.

I didn't know there was a big demand for arks.
Who's paying Hawking a bajillion $$$ for his input?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here's an interesting bit of rhetoric.

Since I'm not retarded, I won't copy/paste the whole thing in here as some kind of idiotic demand that you read the whole thing.

But I will post the part I liked best:

Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution’s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there’s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a “fraud” like evolution — not when there’s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn’t interested in ideology — only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there’s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they’ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren’t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren’t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and — this is trivial, but true — specialists in Noah’s Ark aren’t in demand by naval architects.

Isn’t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don’t waste their time or their shareholders’ money doing “creation science”? Why don’t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don’t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.​

You really have to wonder why the likes of Youwerecreated--with his craxy "Creation Science" skillz--isn't earning a bajillion $$$ leading the biotech industry into brand new and profitable frontiers.

Naw. Not really.

Evolution: Fact or Faith?

What is 'Science'?

The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. Neither Creation nor Evolution are scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of the universe, life and mankind all took place in the past and cannot be studied or repeated in the laboratory. No one, in all human history has ever observed evolution taking place anywhere.

'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory..is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof' (The Foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Harrison L. Matthews. p. x)

'In the classic work, "Implications of Evolution", Dr. G.A. Kerkut, listed seven assumptions upon which evolution is based, and then said.."The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification". (The Implications of Evolution. G.A. Kerut. Pergmon, London. p. 7, 1960)


Evolution: Fact or Faith?

The following are a sample of the religions which are structured around an evolutionary philosophy. Buddhism, Hinduism, Confuscianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judiasm, Isalm and Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity and Humanism. All these share the philosophy (belief structure) that the Universe is Eternal, and reject a self-existent personal God. Evolution is a religion is every sense of the word. It is a world view, a philosophy of life and meaning, an attempt to explain the origin and development of everything from the elements to galaxies to people. There are essentially only three modern creationist religions, orthodox Judaism, Islam and Christianity, these are founded upon the belief in one self-existent eternal Creator, who called the universe itself into existence (Psalm 33:6,9).

At this central beginning point the Bible and Evolution part ways. There is no way that you can believe in an eternal universe and the following passages that all PLACE GOD PRIOR TO 'ALL THINGS MADE'-(John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:10-12).



Even evolutionists consider 'evolution' to be a 'faith'


"Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I strong SUSPECT he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time" ("An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible". Free Inquiry, Vol. 2, Spring 1982 p. 9 By Paul Kurtz).

Logically, if Mr. Asimov doesn't have the 'evidence' to disprove the existence of God (including creation); then neither can he have the 'evidence' that proves his atheism (and the evolution that under-girds it). Which means that his atheism is a 'faith-religion', and he realizes that evolution lacks 'proof'. Before we move on, many assume that no 'real' scientist would ever believe in creation. The following scientists did: In Physics-Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry-Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay. Biology-Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur. Geology-Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz. Astronomy-Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder.



What we haven't been told:

In the Creation-Evolution debate, Christians have been depicted as naive, stupid, gullible, ignorant, having their heads in the sand, out of date, and so on. God tells Christians not to be gullible, to get all the facts (Mark 4:24; 1 Thess. 5:21). The following are things that we haven't been told on PBS, in the National Geographic, or in the classroom. Why?


A. CONCERNING THE FOSSIL RECORD:

The impression given in our schools and in the media is that evolution is an established fact of science, and that it is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record. If evolution did happen, then the fossil record should be full of 'evidence'. But Stephen Jay Gloud, Harvard's top evolutionist has admitted: "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless"

Another evolutionist adds: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology (the study of fossils) DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM" (Evolution. Vol. 28 (Sept. 1974). p. 467. David B. Kitts 'Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory'). What this means is that living things have remained the same! This agrees with what Christians have believed all along. (Genesis 1:12,21,24)


B. EVOLUTION AND ESTABLISHED LAWS OF SCIENCE:

The most universal laws of science are the first and second law of thermodynamics. "As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down" (Isaac Asimov. 1973). This is the second law, all systems are in the process of running down, decaying, growing old, moving from order to disorder. The Bible agrees (Hebrews 1:11-12). But evolution has everything moving 'upward', not downward:

"One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, NOT MORE ORDER" ("A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity". Science. Vol. 217 (Sept. 24, 1982). p. 1239 Roger Lewin)


C. THE SUPPOSED AGE OF THE UNIVERSE:

We often hear dates in the billions for the age of the universe. These dates are frequently stated in the classroom or on television. "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are CLAIMED TO BE. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years (boy, that narrows it down-M.D.). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock" (The Science of Evolution. New York. Macmillan. 1977. p. 84 William D.Stansfield)


D. THE AGE OF MAN HIMSELF:

Evolution claims that man has been on the earth for a million years. The problem is that using population statistics, the universe should be packed with people. Assuming a million year occupation, starting with two people, taking a very conservative growth rate (1/2 percent---the current is 2 percent), a million years of mankind would calculate to a present population of 10 to the 2100 power people (only 10 to the 130 power electrons could be crammed into the entire known universe!) The same figures would arrive at the current population on the planet in 4000 years. It is interesting to note that Jesus placed man and woman 'from the beginning of Creation' (Mark 10:6; Matthew 19:4). Jesus didn't have a 4 billion year gap between the planet and mankind's arrival.


E. THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN:

For years we have been told that the Geological Column, the assemblage of fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks around the world, was formed over millions of years. But: (1) Every unit in the column was formed rapidly (The Nature of the Geographical Record. New York. John Wiley Publ., 1981. pp. 54, 106-107, etc..Derek V. Ager). (2) There are no worldwide unconformities in the column (that is, "time breaks, or periods of erosion rather than deposition"). The entire column from bottom to top reflects unbroken continuity (i.e. one layer laid down right after another). (3) Supposed 'old' and 'new' fossils are mixed up in the column. Rocks of all types, minerals, metals, coal and oil, structures of all types are found indiscriminately in rocks of all 'supposed time periods'. Rather than a slow process, involving millions of years, this sounds like the column was formed all at one time, during and following a great world wide disaster, a disaster that would of curned up the whole face of the earth, moved whole mountains and formed others, buried hundreds, thousands and millions of living things in common graves--hey, this sounds a lot like the Flood of Noah. Sadly, everybody wants to forget about the flood. (2 Peter 3:3-7).


What does evolution have left?

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?


http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Evolve.htm

 

[LOki]

Here's an interesting bit of rhetoric.

Since I'm not retarded, I won't copy/paste the whole thing in here as some kind of idiotic demand that you read the whole thing.

But I will post the part I liked best:

Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution’s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there’s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a “fraud” like evolution — not when there’s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn’t interested in ideology — only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there’s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they’ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren’t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren’t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and — this is trivial, but true — specialists in Noah’s Ark aren’t in demand by naval architects.

Isn’t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don’t waste their time or their shareholders’ money doing “creation science”? Why don’t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don’t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.​

You really have to wonder why the likes of Youwerecreated--with his craxy "Creation Science" skillz--isn't earning a bajillion $$$ leading the biotech industry into brand new and profitable frontiers.

Naw. Not really.

Evolution: Fact or Faith?

---ANOTHER YOUWERECREATED COPY/PASTE VOMIT-PALOOZA SNIPPED---​

Evolution: Fact or Faith

Everything you posted above there, Youwerecreated--the entire whiffle-ball game of disinformation .... that sorry quote mining adventure ... is just utter crap. Your retarded tribe's bitterness at reality makes the spectacle of your battle against the strawmen you create pathetic.

"If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries."​

Seriously now. The science you attempt to criticize is objectively validated by reality in a way your Creationism never enjoys ... can never enjoy. Creationism isn't science--it's superstition. You have to understand that, right?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here's an interesting bit of rhetoric.

Since I'm not retarded, I won't copy/paste the whole thing in here as some kind of idiotic demand that you read the whole thing.

But I will post the part I liked best:

Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution’s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there’s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a “fraud” like evolution — not when there’s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn’t interested in ideology — only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there’s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they’ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren’t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren’t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and — this is trivial, but true — specialists in Noah’s Ark aren’t in demand by naval architects.

Isn’t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don’t waste their time or their shareholders’ money doing “creation science”? Why don’t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don’t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.​

You really have to wonder why the likes of Youwerecreated--with his craxy "Creation Science" skillz--isn't earning a bajillion $$$ leading the biotech industry into brand new and profitable frontiers.

Naw. Not really.

Evolution: Fact or Faith?

What is 'Science'?

The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. Neither Creation nor Evolution are scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of the universe, life and mankind all took place in the past and cannot be studied or repeated in the laboratory. No one, in all human history has ever observed evolution taking place anywhere.

'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory..is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof' (The Foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Harrison L. Matthews. p. x)

'In the classic work, "Implications of Evolution", Dr. G.A. Kerkut, listed seven assumptions upon which evolution is based, and then said.."The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification". (The Implications of Evolution. G.A. Kerut. Pergmon, London. p. 7, 1960)


Evolution: Fact or Faith?

The following are a sample of the religions which are structured around an evolutionary philosophy. Buddhism, Hinduism, Confuscianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judiasm, Isalm and Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity and Humanism. All these share the philosophy (belief structure) that the Universe is Eternal, and reject a self-existent personal God. Evolution is a religion is every sense of the word. It is a world view, a philosophy of life and meaning, an attempt to explain the origin and development of everything from the elements to galaxies to people. There are essentially only three modern creationist religions, orthodox Judaism, Islam and Christianity, these are founded upon the belief in one self-existent eternal Creator, who called the universe itself into existence (Psalm 33:6,9).

At this central beginning point the Bible and Evolution part ways. There is no way that you can believe in an eternal universe and the following passages that all PLACE GOD PRIOR TO 'ALL THINGS MADE'-(John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:10-12).



Even evolutionists consider 'evolution' to be a 'faith'


"Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I strong SUSPECT he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time" ("An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible". Free Inquiry, Vol. 2, Spring 1982 p. 9 By Paul Kurtz).

Logically, if Mr. Asimov doesn't have the 'evidence' to disprove the existence of God (including creation); then neither can he have the 'evidence' that proves his atheism (and the evolution that under-girds it). Which means that his atheism is a 'faith-religion', and he realizes that evolution lacks 'proof'. Before we move on, many assume that no 'real' scientist would ever believe in creation. The following scientists did: In Physics-Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry-Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay. Biology-Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur. Geology-Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz. Astronomy-Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder.



What we haven't been told:

In the Creation-Evolution debate, Christians have been depicted as naive, stupid, gullible, ignorant, having their heads in the sand, out of date, and so on. God tells Christians not to be gullible, to get all the facts (Mark 4:24; 1 Thess. 5:21). The following are things that we haven't been told on PBS, in the National Geographic, or in the classroom. Why?


A. CONCERNING THE FOSSIL RECORD:

The impression given in our schools and in the media is that evolution is an established fact of science, and that it is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record. If evolution did happen, then the fossil record should be full of 'evidence'. But Stephen Jay Gloud, Harvard's top evolutionist has admitted: "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless"

Another evolutionist adds: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology (the study of fossils) DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM" (Evolution. Vol. 28 (Sept. 1974). p. 467. David B. Kitts 'Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory'). What this means is that living things have remained the same! This agrees with what Christians have believed all along. (Genesis 1:12,21,24)


B. EVOLUTION AND ESTABLISHED LAWS OF SCIENCE:

The most universal laws of science are the first and second law of thermodynamics. "As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down" (Isaac Asimov. 1973). This is the second law, all systems are in the process of running down, decaying, growing old, moving from order to disorder. The Bible agrees (Hebrews 1:11-12). But evolution has everything moving 'upward', not downward:

"One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, NOT MORE ORDER" ("A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity". Science. Vol. 217 (Sept. 24, 1982). p. 1239 Roger Lewin)


C. THE SUPPOSED AGE OF THE UNIVERSE:

We often hear dates in the billions for the age of the universe. These dates are frequently stated in the classroom or on television. "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are CLAIMED TO BE. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years (boy, that narrows it down-M.D.). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock" (The Science of Evolution. New York. Macmillan. 1977. p. 84 William D.Stansfield)


D. THE AGE OF MAN HIMSELF:

Evolution claims that man has been on the earth for a million years. The problem is that using population statistics, the universe should be packed with people. Assuming a million year occupation, starting with two people, taking a very conservative growth rate (1/2 percent---the current is 2 percent), a million years of mankind would calculate to a present population of 10 to the 2100 power people (only 10 to the 130 power electrons could be crammed into the entire known universe!) The same figures would arrive at the current population on the planet in 4000 years. It is interesting to note that Jesus placed man and woman 'from the beginning of Creation' (Mark 10:6; Matthew 19:4). Jesus didn't have a 4 billion year gap between the planet and mankind's arrival.


E. THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN:

For years we have been told that the Geological Column, the assemblage of fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks around the world, was formed over millions of years. But: (1) Every unit in the column was formed rapidly (The Nature of the Geographical Record. New York. John Wiley Publ., 1981. pp. 54, 106-107, etc..Derek V. Ager). (2) There are no worldwide unconformities in the column (that is, "time breaks, or periods of erosion rather than deposition"). The entire column from bottom to top reflects unbroken continuity (i.e. one layer laid down right after another). (3) Supposed 'old' and 'new' fossils are mixed up in the column. Rocks of all types, minerals, metals, coal and oil, structures of all types are found indiscriminately in rocks of all 'supposed time periods'. Rather than a slow process, involving millions of years, this sounds like the column was formed all at one time, during and following a great world wide disaster, a disaster that would of curned up the whole face of the earth, moved whole mountains and formed others, buried hundreds, thousands and millions of living things in common graves--hey, this sounds a lot like the Flood of Noah. Sadly, everybody wants to forget about the flood. (2 Peter 3:3-7).


What does evolution have left?

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?


Evolution: Fact or Faith

Everything you posted above there Youwerecreated, .... utter crap.

"If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries."

Oh but they are and they are by looking at the same evidence the evolutionist are looking at and exposing the lies of secularism and natutralism in the fields of science.

In the New York Times nov/21/2006 Nobel prize winner in 1979 won it from the field of Physics said anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done,that sounds like they would purposely lie and fabricate evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your assertions here demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the basic concept of mutations as they relate to the theory of evolution.

Nowhere does any widely accepted theory of evolution contradict the fact that most genetic mutations are harmful to the individual organism displaying said mutation. However, if that mutation makes it harder for that organism to survive, that organism likely dies off.

When a mutation is beneficial, however, that individual organism excells at survival. When it reproduces, it sometimes produces offspring with some variation of that same beneficial mutation. They excell and reproduce, so on and so forth, until that beneficial property is prevalent enough that those without it have a harder and harder time competing for the same resources.

Nowhere does any respected evolutionary theory speculate that a mutation spreads swiftly through an entire species. I don't think anybody with a half a brain and an ounce of knowledge on the subject believes that the same mutation is going to be widespread in one or two generations. . . genes are passed on via reproduction.

I gather that you're getting this a lot, but you can't disprove an argument you don't even understand. Keep at it, tho. Good times.

Here ya go but I suggest you getting his book.

Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue
Dr. Lee Spetner
continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

© 2001 L.M. Spetner. All Rights Reserved.

--ANOTHER RETARDED COPY/PAST VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

"So to summarize, although Spetner's arguments are superficially plausible, a deeper look with some knowledge of biochemistry shows massive flaws. Spetner is wrong in the details of the biology, ligand specificity is not directly governed by binding string length as required by Spetner's theory, and ligand binding is not an "all or nothing affair". This invalidates his analyses. Even then, Spetner's own examples do not support his claims. Furthermore, when using his metrics Spetner swaps metrics when one shows inconvenient changes." LINK

Evolutionist claim we humans Dna is 98% similar to a chimp.

Did we evolve from a ape, from a mouse, or maybe a banana ? they say our Dna is 98% similar to a chimp,96% of a mouse and 50% of a banana.

Nature magazine increases the Dna difference to atleast 7.7% between humans and chimps may 27-2004 pages 382-388.

Each cell contains 3 billion base pairs of genetic information if you take that 7.7 % of 3 billion base pairs of Dna you would need 231,000,000 information adding beneficial mutations to turn a chimp into a human. since there are so many harmful mutations you could not get 231,000,000 consectutive beneficial mutations with out interruptions from harmful mutations.

 

[LOki]

here ya go but i suggest you getting his book.

Lee spetner/edward max dialogue
dr. Lee spetner
continuing an exchange with dr. Edward e. Max

© 2001 l.m. Spetner. All rights reserved.

--another retarded copy/past vomit pile snipped--

dr. Lee spetner's continued exchange with dr. Edward e. Max

"so to summarize, although spetner's arguments are superficially plausible, a deeper look with some knowledge of biochemistry shows massive flaws. Spetner is wrong in the details of the biology, ligand specificity is not directly governed by binding string length as required by spetner's theory, and ligand binding is not an "all or nothing affair". This invalidates his analyses. Even then, spetner's own examples do not support his claims. Furthermore, when using his metrics spetner swaps metrics when one shows inconvenient changes." link

evolutionist claim we humans dna is 98% similar to a chimp.

Did we evolve from a ape, from a mouse, or maybe a banana ? They say our dna is 98% similar to a chimp,96% of a mouse and 50% of a banana.

Nature magazine increases the dna difference to atleast 7.7% between humans and chimps may 27-2004 pages 382-388.

Each cell contains 3 billion base pairs of genetic information if you take that 7.7 % of 3 billion base pairs of dna you would need 231,000,000 information adding beneficial mutations to turn a chimp into a human. Since there are so many harmful mutations you could not get 231,000,000 consectutive beneficial mutations with out interruptions from harmful mutations.

Red-herring.

 

[LOki]

Evolution: Fact or Faith?

---YOUWERECREATED'S DISINFORMATION SNIPPED---​

Evolution: Fact or Faith

Everything you posted above there Youwerecreated, .... utter crap.

"If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries."

Oh but they are and they are by looking at the same evidence the evolutionist are looking at and exposing the lies of secularism and natutralism in the fields of science.

Well, so far every single example (without exception) you've summoned up to illustrate this point of yours has revealed instead the actual reality of the situation is quite the opposite.

Why is that?

In the New York Times nov/21/2006 Nobel prize winner in 1979 won it from the field of Physics said anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done,that sounds like they would purposely lie and fabricate evidence.

While this superficially appears to be true, what you, yourself have demonstrated is that the superstitious routinely purposely lie and fabricate evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, because if you state you do not believe in God, since you have no evidence, then you have belief.

Way it is, sunshine.

I know it bugs non-believers, but there it is, what can you do?

So if you do not believe in God, and you can't prove it, then you have faith, ...

No. It MAY be faith--IF the belief is unfounded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. IF the strength of denial of valid logic and verifiable evidence is the validating criteria of the belief, THEN it is faith.

Otherwise, not so much.