Creation vs. Evolution

[KieranMurphy]

I don't think those "proofs" are hard evidence.

I like the following "hard evidence". This is only a sample of thousands of examples of scientific data which proves the theory of evolution.

Humans and the great apes need to eat vitamin C because they can't manufacture it themselves. Nearly all other mammals can synthesize vitamin C. When geneticists examined human and other ape DNA they discovered something very interesting. Humans and great apes actually have the gene necessary for making vitamin C. The same gene that other mammals have. But it's broken in us and other apes. There's mutations in the gene that prevent it from working. The gene is broken in exactly the same way in humans and the great apes.

This all makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view. Imagine an ape like ancestor living in the forests of Africa millions of years. Imagine that it is a creature that eats lots of fruit, just like plenty of primates do today. Fruit that's high in Vitamin C. Imagine that a mutation occured that broke that gene. Usually that would be a bad thing and would dissappear in a few generations because individuals with the mutation would be at a disadvantage and would be outbred. But in this case it makes no difference because they're getting all the vitamin C they need from their diet.

Now, imagine that broken gene existed in an individual or population with other genetic advantages that would lead to them outbreeding the rest of the species. The mutated broken gene could ride alongside superior genes and eventually become the normal vitamin C gene in the species and in all species that evolved from them.

That's an evolutionary explanation of why the broken Vitamin C gene exists in humans and the great apes. Even if it didn't happen quite the way I described, the fact that humans and apes share that exact same broken gene that other mammals have is another piece of evidence that confirms evolution.

But what's the Creationist explanation for that broken gene existing in humans and apes? Inquiring minds want to know....


KM.

 

[Danoff]

But what's the Creationist explanation for that broken gene existing in humans and apes? Inquiring minds want to know....

Maybe you believe that the gene is broken, but I believe that we are created in God's image. This is Satan's trickery to try to fool us into following him rather than Him.

... and... don't ask questions like that because, well, the bible doesn't talk about that stuff.

 

[code_kev]

*i am such a dumb ass*

 

[Famine]

I'll let you in on a little secret, code_kev. danoff was being ironic. And a bloody good job he did too. I was sitting here guffawing like a drainpipe.

 

[Schumy]

he didn't fool me...

anyways, here's something of interest I just read while studying for my midterm which is tomorrow:

With regards to the initiation of transcription of a eukaryotic gene by RNA polymerase II, there is mention of how the general transcription factors have been highly conserved in evolution; some of those from human cells can be replaced in biochemical experiments by the corresponding factors from simple yeasts.

very impressive.

just one of the millions of examples of how nothing in science makes sense except in the light of evolution.

 

[code_kev]

rofl I'm so dumb, on a second reading I actually get it. DOH!

 

[a6m5]

I'm not up to date on all of Albert Einstein's theorys and results, but were any of them related to this topic?

He believe that without God, the creator, this universe couldn't have existed.

 

[Sage]

No. Albert Einstein was a mathematician.

👍

Satan and his followers are desperatly trying to decieve people as we speak, and this topic is where they begin.

So stealing music's okay (and as Famine said, you only did it a couple weeks ago – you've got a PM coming your way from me), but giving out scientific knowledge isn't?

Anyway, Famine's already shot down everything you said, and done so very well. I'd bet everything I have that you can't come up with a rational response.

 

[milefile]

What the hell is this thread about?

Anyway...

I have a question: Is it possible to be a believing Christian and believe the theory of evolution?

 

[Iceman]

I think it all depends on how far you take evolution, or how far you take religion. I've heard the theory that God created organisms that evolved into what we see today, which is represented by Adam and Eve. Most of the fundamental aspects of evolution are contradicted by the Adam and Eve story, as humans in this case.

 

[a6m5]

And how!



Okay. I'll go REAL slow.

Molecular biology says that all multi-celled organisms originate from simple single-celled organisms.
There is no room for manoeuvre - this happened.
Ergo this is concrete evidence that the theory IS correct.

Again, it is a theory. You can draw me a picture, theory is still a theory. I'm happy that your concrete evidence support your view, it is still an hypothesis. I'm not saying your theory is wrong(for the 100th time), but it does not make it an fact, in the true meaning of the word. There are some scientist who argues it is a fact, but those are strong supporters of the evolution theory like yourself, who believes they are right, and that's all there is to it.

That isn't what I said at all. I know many scientists with an unshakeable religious view.

However, "Creation Scientists" - those who espouse the Doctrine of Creation, using long words - are not scientists. A scientist is someone who devises an hypothesis (and the corresponding null hypothesis), creates a fair test (where applicable), collects ALL evidence created by the test, has it statistically analysed for chance occurences and formulates a conclusion based on the evidence, whether or not it agrees with the original hypothesis. If you set out with a preconceived idea and selectively ignore any evidence or previous works which contradict this idea, you are not a scientist. "Creation Science" is thus a misnomer, since there is absolutely no evidence at all that Creation, as preached by them, occured or that Evolutionary theory is incorrect - yet they set out believing that Evolution is wrong and Creation happened. All the evidence says otherwise.

So, in your view, how are the"scientists with an unshakeable religious view" accepting both the creator and the evolution theory? Also, according your last post, you are implying that only people who are supporting creationism are "creation scientists". I agree with you that there are many who are so blinded by their religion, they disapprove of evolution, blindly. Who cares about them. Please do not forget about real scientists, many who teaches, researches, and still doesn't believe in evolution theory. Some of those scientists hold very high positions in the scientific community. They've written books, some teach or are in charge of famous universities. There are people on the evolutionists side, who also does samethings you are accusing the "creationist scientists" of. Preaching the evolutionism, not willing to think or accept other possiblities, faking fossil records, inventing theories. Whatever it takes to keep the theory true, and prove creationists wrong.


No. Albert Einstein was a mathematician.

Yes, he was a mathematician. He was also a physicist, physicists are scientists. Chances are, people will say that he was the great scientist, more often than the greatest mathematician.

Name them.

This is why science is peer-reviewed.

Well, I don't know their names(I know, I know), but it is a known fact(not to discredit the real scientist who support and research the evolution) that evolutionists have faked fossils, bone fragments of missing-link, etc., many times. Again, I can't remember his name(-_-), but I'm sure you've heard of an German scientist or biologist(in 1800s?), who was an authority in evolution theory in his time, made up an theory about how human fetus had gills on their neck. I apologize for not remembering names. I'm sure if I spent like an hour on search engine, I can find them, but you guys will still refuse to believe them anyway, so it is a waste of time.

Post the article.

I can't remember!. I read an magazine article long time ago, I can't even remember if it was Newsweek or what. I'm sure if you search on the internet, you'll find bunch of similar article.

I never said that he was. Questioning the theory is fine - as I said earlier, if it was universally accepted, there'd be no research at all. However, attempting to prove that it didn't happen and Creation did is not science and cannot be proven scientifically - unless you make things up.


I'm fearing that you don't understand the basic difference between Evolution, Evolutionary theory and Evolutionary Mechanics.

Evolution is fact. Evolution happened, is happening and will continue to happen (although humanity is doing its best to stop it in them at least).

Evolutionary mechanics is not totally understood - we KNOW that prokaryotes formed eukaryotic cells and thus all complex life on Earth. Exactly how this happened is conjecture, although invagination seems to be a good concept. Chance mutations forming the basis of new species is better understood, thanks to studies on organisms with very brief generation time.

Evolutionary theory is the basic theory of how we - and all other animals - turned up from previous animals. This is not a complete picture by any means, thanks to the fact that we have next-to-no fossils from the 68% of our planet which is underwater and have only ever managed to bore down about 2km of our 20km thick crust, so really deep and early land fossils are scarce.

I'd like to tell you one last time famine, I have no doubt in my mind that you know what you are talking about. But I am not qualified to debate you to prove or disapprove anything other than GT4 subjects(I'm kidding, I suck at that too). You clearly won the debate, let me off the hook!

 

[Schumy]

can you people stop with the phrases "preaching of evolutionism" and "believing in the theory of evolution"

you don't know how petty you sound

it's really your misfortune if you don't want to accept what is going on in science because you don't have a solid science background and can't even begin to appreciate it

you're unaware that's all.

 

[a6m5]

can you people stop with the phrases "preaching of evolutionism" and "believing in the theory of evolution"

you don't know how petty you sound

it's really your misfortune if you don't want to accept what is going on in science because you don't have a solid science background and can't even begin to appreciate it

you're unaware that's all.

Chill out, I'll be more careful next time. I'm not trying to upset anyone.

 

[Zrow]

What the hell is this thread about?

Anyway...

I have a question: Is it possible to be a believing Christian and believe the theory of evolution?

Definitely - considering the evidence supporting evolution, I would guess that many Christians see this and realize the validity of the theory. This, more than likely, isn't going to change their core religious beliefs, as Adam and Eve is only a part of the Christian religion. My question is, why is the bible taken so literally? If God does exist, is there a reason that God wouldn't use science (which we've already established was created by Him, right?) to develop the Earth? Why are these people so dead-set against science?

 

[Schumy]

Definitely - considering the evidence supporting evolution, I would guess that many Christians see this and realize the validity of the theory. This, more than likely, isn't going to change their core religious beliefs, as Adam and Eve is only a part of the Christian religion. My question is, why is the bible taken so literally? If God does exist, is there a reason that God wouldn't use science (which we've already established was created by Him, right?) to develop the Earth? Why are these people so dead-set against science?

Even the pope cannot ignore what science has uncovered ...that says alot when a religious leader has an open mind...I say good for him otherwise I wouldn't think much of the guy. I guess some people still take the story of Genesis literally. Are these just people from small branches of Christianity? To me, a literal interpretation is just absurd and irrational. Keep in mind they didn't have a good concept of time back then ....

Clearly you don't have to take Genesis literally to believe in God ...Last time I checked, the Pope believes in God!

 

[Smoke_U_24/7]

👍


So stealing music's okay (and as Famine said, you only did it a couple weeks ago – you've got a PM coming your way from me), but giving out scientific knowledge isn't?

Anyway, Famine's already shot down everything you said, and done so very well. I'd bet everything I have that you can't come up with a rational response.

Please send the PM again... my pop-up blocker was on and therefore your message was blocked.

Anyaway, Stealing is NOT okay in the law of god. It looks like you havn't read all of my previous post, so i'm gonna say it again:
"Me being a pirate is becoming a thing of the past because it's not really worth it to steal audio files and software program. This is only a temporary thing because yes stealing is against gods law, But the bible states that Not only god, but Jesus loves us so much that he wants us to be free to think about what direction we want to go in. And that's where I am now."

So there it is, Jesus knows that i'm in the situation that i'm in right now, and he knows that I know that what i'm doing wrong, but he won't force me to do good.
Unless you're a family member of that person, Forcing someone to do anything is
wrong, even in the US laws. But you say "If Jesus is dead, then why does he know, and why do you say he is returning to stop the "final battle."

Here's the one story that you need to know from the bible if you want scientific evidence: The Story of the Crucifiction and resurrection of christ. There is indeed scientific evidence that the resurrection actually took place. I forgot the name of the program that showed this evidence, but the station was TBN: Trinity Broadcasting Network. It should be channel 71 on Comcast Cable, and if you can't find the station, the web site is www.tbn.org. That station runs programs that give scientific evidence of the existance of god. But again I say to you, The resurrection of Jesus is the one TRUE FACT THAT GOD EXISTS. Keep in mind, though that this was a supernatural event, and not all can be explained, because the human brain cannot comprehend supernatural events.
I will quote the words of Neon_Duke (thanks, btw):"don't forget the story of Adam and Eve. They were banninated from Eden after Eve took the Apple of Knowledge from the Tree of Life, causing humans' downfall by performing the Original Sin. Do not question what we tell you. You are not meant to understand and it is a sin to try. You will be told everything we want you to know".

Again, we weren't meant to understand the ways and the power of God, but
he gives us clues of his existence THROUGH SCIENCE. Also remember this: Since he is Supernatural, He is not of Time and Space, so therefore it is impossible to understand and question his existance.
You want more Evidence, Look up Dr. Carl Baugh on Google. He not only studies the creation, but evolution also, and will show you flaws in the evolytion theory.

About Prohecy, Yes it is evidence that god exist because if you watch BBC World
News, they always report prophetic events, just read these chapters and versus in the bible, but these are not all: Matthew Chapter 24, Luke Chapter 21, and (here's an important one concerning the coming of the lord), PAUL CHAPTER 2 VERSUS 1-12.
Read those chapters and versus, then compare them to current events that are happening right now. THIS IS EVIDENCE.

About evidence, yes evidence has to be studied through Christian Science because Satan has Decieved the people who write the books about Science.
God lets these things happen because this all part of his plan. Satan is just a pawn in gods plan to save his earth.

Again I say to you, The comment I made concerning piracy was just a thing of the past. GOD DOES NOT ACCEPT PEOPLE THAT COMMIT ANY OR ALL OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN HEAVEN. Let me quote the words of jesus himself in John chapter 3 verse 16: " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son so that anyone who believes in him would not perish, but have eternal life." What that means is God knew that people would sin, and he no longer wanted to
punish those who do wrong. He sent his only son, Jesus Christ to die on the cross
to forgive us for our sins and be resurrected, so that we MAY have eternal life. But we have to come to Jesus first and ask him to save him. All power has been given to him, and he is one with his father. God is Jesus, Jesus is God.

Code_Kev, Satan did not "bury" the Dinosaurs. Once you have read and understood the bible, you will know that the Flood that happended in Noahs day killed off not only the Dinosaurs, but EVERY LIVING THING ON THIS EARTH! It looks like you misunderstood what I was saying. Satan is only THE PART OWNER of this world,
here's the defintion of Rent:
Verb: Rent
1.Grant use or occupation of under a term of contract
2.Engage for service under a term of contract

Satan did have part in the flood because the world was so immoral, so sinful, that
the people as well as the animals on this earth had to suffer the wrath of God.
Read the full story and you will understand.

But to everyone, read and research the bible and you will find out that
God is real and Jesus is alive and well.
So if I ever want to come back to God and serve him again, I must not debate with you people anymore. Take my words to heart, and PLEASE READ THE BIBLE.

Thank you and God Bless You.

 

[Smoke_U_24/7]

Even the pope cannot ignore what science has uncovered ...that says alot when a religious leader has an open mind...I say good for him otherwise I wouldn't think much of the guy. I guess some people still take the story of Genesis literally. Are these just people from small branches of Christianity? To me, a literal interpretation is just absurd and irrational. Keep in mind they didn't have a good concept of time back then ....

Clearly you don't have to take Genesis literally to believe in God ...Last time I checked, the Pope believes in God!

It's sad but true, but the Catholic Christian faith is not the TRUE church. The Only one that is the true faith is The Pentecostal Christian Faith.

 

[Schumy]

It's sad but true, but the Catholic Christian faith is not the TRUE church. The Only one that is the true faith is The Pentecostal Christian Faith.

I'm glad you see the world with such clarity.

 

[Smoke_U_24/7]

I'm glad you see the world with such clarity.

Thanks. Just look at the scandals that have rocked the catholic church.
Raping innocent childing is obviously a sin against God, so therefore it can't be true.
Just read between the lines whenever you subscribe to any belief or anything, as a matter of fact.
Now look at the Pentecostal Christian Faith. Research that faith. You'll see that nothing like that happended.

 

[Famine]

Thanks. Just look at the scandals that have rocked the catholic church.
Raping innocent childing is obviously a sin against God, so therefore it can't be true.
Just read between the lines whenever you subscribe to any belief or anything, as a matter of fact.
Now look at the Pentecostal Christian Faith. Research that faith. You'll see that nothing like that happended.

Especially not if your only sources are Pentecostal Christian media.

For your reference, the Bible puts Noah's flood at about 1500BC. Science puts a great flood in the Mesopotamia area - the Babylonians are thought to be the originators of the Great Flood myth - at about 4500BC. The dinosaurs all died out around 65 MILLION years ago.

Noah's flood did not kill the dinosaurs.

 

[KieranMurphy]

All this talk about a global flood...

The Egyptian pyramids were built over a thousand years before the flood happened supposedly happened. How come archaeologists have evidence of a continuing Egyptian civilisation from the time of the Pyramids and right up to and long after the supposed flood happening. How did that happen?

There's a similar situation in China with no evidence that Chinese civilisation was wiped out in about 2000BC.

If your solution to all this is that either God is testing our faith or that Satan is planting evidence to deceive us then.... how can you know anything? How do you know that the Bible wasn't written 100 years ago by Satan and he's just made up a bunch of evidence that is was written much earlier and that if you believe any of it you'll go straight to hell? How do you know that Satan hasn't tricked you into believing a flood happened because he doesn't want you to know the real truth? How can you tell truth from fiction if you believe that Satan is going around planting evidence to deceive us?

How do you tell the difference between evidence of your religious beliefs and Satan's false evidence?

And what about my post about the vitamin C gene in apes and humans? Was that the work of evil Satanist scientists who are fooling us? Better switch off your PC and don't go near a modern hospital for medical treatment then, those darned evil scientists are responsible for the knowledge that allows other modern scientific technology to work. I hope you never rely on a DNA test to prove your innocence either. Darned evil geneticists and their false theories of genetics!


KM.

 

[Smoke_U_24/7]

Go to http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html. This web site will asnwer alot of questions. I'd advise you to order some of the books, too.

 

[Arwin]

St. Augustine all over again

These discussions are pointless. People like a6m5 are the exception, unfortunately. My greatest regards to you a6m5 for always remaining patient, open minded and polite in this discussion, greatly respected and appreciated. 👍

 

[Smoke_U_24/7]

Especially not if your only sources are Pentecostal Christian media.

For your reference, the Bible puts Noah's flood at about 1500BC. Science puts a great flood in the Mesopotamia area - the Babylonians are thought to be the originators of the Great Flood myth - at about 4500BC. The dinosaurs all died out around 65 MILLION years ago.

Noah's flood did not kill the dinosaurs.

Actually, Those facts are wrong! Again, take a read of creationevidence.org because I don't exactly remember all of the supporting facts, but the point
is that the dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago. Another one of Satan's deceptions.

 

[Famine]

CreationEvidence.org say:

"A tremendous pyramid of evidence for design and recent creation is available for detailed study.

Romans 1:20 states: "For the invisible things of him from the creation are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse."

Scientific evidence for creation abounds in areas of objective observation. Scholars in various scientific disciplines have written about the incredible complexity in living systems and the structure of the universe. This complexity is beyond the possibility of natural development."

So, their opening paragraphs use Scripture and conjecture as their founding case. Who says that "the incredible complexity in living systems... is beyond the possibility of natural development" exactly? Ah yes, of course... the Bible! Must be true then.

Nonetheless, let's move on. To their "coal" theory of a young Earth:

""If coal takes millions and millions of years of heat and pressure to form, how is it possible that creationists are teaching that the earth is only a few thousand years old?" This is a commonly asked question among individuals seeking answers about the age of the earth and the universe. Research has been done by several creation organizations, as well as independent scientists, in order to answer such questions. The evidence actually shows that coal does not take millions of years to form, as is commonly asserted. In fact, the formation of coal has been proven to be a rapid process that can be duplicated in modern laboratories in a matter of days - or even hours."

Evidence is quoted, but not directly referred to. Coal has NEVER been formed in a laboratory. Ask yourself this question - if coal can be produced in labs, why are petrochemical companies not doing this now, given that their estimates say we have only 50-75 years' worth of coal left to use. Making it in a lab would solve this problem at a stroke.

Everything else on that page - uranium haloes, lead-to-uranium ratios, petrification ("is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate") - is complete and utter nonsense, dressed up in verbose filibustering in the hope that no-one will notice. And uses Genesis as a scientific reference...

Moving on yet further - 10 reasons why they think Creation is proven:

"1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.""

Ever BEEN to the Grand Canyon? You can see, clearly, 100 million year's worth of geological transitions.

"2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years."

Assumption of a trend before obeservable points in time. Besides which, more geological evidence shows a periodic reversal of the Earth's magnetic field, occurring roughly once every 7,000 years. And what exactly is a "magnetic star"? Can one have non-magnetic ones now?

"3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood."

The key here is "cultures all over the world". The story originated from the Babylonians, 3,000 years before monotheistic religion first appeared. They lived in Mesopotamia (literally "Land between rivers") between the Tigris and Euphrates - a fertile region prone to seasonal flooding. The Noah story is directly derived from the Babylonian flood.

"4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10^89. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies."

I don't even know where to begin with this one. They're using recent population growth data (the last 10 years) to prove that humanity isn't as old as it is. They're completely ignoring all population data from the 1830s-1970s which show that the population growth rate has accelerated, and they've glossed over two Ice Ages which wiped out everything north of the Equator in their 41,000 year model.

Oh, and the universe is infinite, so can hold whatever it feels like.

"5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form."

No, it doesn't. Think through this with me.

At 0, no granite exists. At 300,000,000, granite exists. At points in between some, the amount gradually increasing, granite exists. Hence "ISOLATED" radio haloes.

"6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past."

What? Where's this evidence? When was it created? What species of human made the marks. You cannot quote "evidence" and not actually present it.

"7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years."

"At present rates". *sigh*

"8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars."

This is all gibberish. Astronomical estimates of the distances to extremely distant objects does NOT give conflicting data.

"9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 ^ 4,478,296."

And your proof for this number?

Don't forget, the Universe is infinite. Everything that can happen will happen - somewhere.

"10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so."

And this is scientific how? "We're complicated so someone must have made us"? Assumption - and nowhere near evidence or proof for anything.

I'm going to gloss over the next page as they directly contradict themselves and make a wholly false statement about the nature of magnetism.

Next up it's evidence that the Earth was created for us... Oh deary, deary me.

"(1) Abundance of Liquid Water --- This flowing treasure is unique in the combination of physical and chemical properties it manifests as the only possible solvent and medium for living cells. More than 70% of the planet is covered by some 326 million cubic miles of liquid water, enough to submerge a perfectly smooth and spherical Earth to a depth of 8,500 feet (over 1.6 miles!!)."

Yes, living cells use water, so water must have been put here for us. Rather than water being here and cells evolving as a result of its presence and abundance to use it.

"2) Cleansing Ocean Tides --- The ebb and flow of Earth's tidal circulation (in response to the lunar gravitational pull) purifies the world ocean and the continental shorelines which serve to enclose its waters."

Written by someone who's never been to the Ganges - a tidal river.

"(3) Ideal Planetary Size and Mass --- With an equatorial diameter of 7,927 miles (Job 38:18 / Isa. 40:22a) and a mass equal to nearly 6.588 sextillion (10 ^ 23 = billion trillion) tons, the Earth is able to provide the perfect gravitational attraction and optimum atmospheric pressure for living organisms."

Oh my word. The Earth is "perfect" for life, so it must have been made for it. No. The Earth is "perfect" for the life upon it because the life upon evolved upon it. How about the Universe being infinite, thus infinitely varied. Several extrasolar planets are the same size as Earth.

"(4) Life-Sustaining Atmosphere --- It has been said of the Earth that "the existence of its inhabitants hangs upon a thin and delicate sheath of gas that envelops the planet like the skin of an apple." Though over 99% of our atmosphere (composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other gases) lies below 50 miles in altitude, it still is able to (a) provide the necessary oxygen crucial for animal and human respiration, (b) preserve acceptable temperature ranges while avoiding life-threatening extremes of heat and cold, and (c) protect from incoming extraterrestrial debris and (UV) solar radiation."

Life-threatening extremes to whom? We have archaeabacteria on Earth which live in +400 degree conditions, in pools of acid, deep underwater where there is no oxygen and in pure salt. We have bacteria which only thrive if subjected to uv. And of course we have plants - which also use oxygen to respire - which predominantly use carbon dioxide to photosynthesise. Pity there's only 0.03% of it in our atmosphere.

"5) Protective Magnetic Field --- Supplemented by the Van Allen radiation belts, the ionosphere, and the ozone layer as interior shields of defense, the Earth's magnetic field not only protects us from cosmic bombardment of harmful particles and high-frequency waves, it is also responsible for facilitating cellular communication and directional location."

Someone's been watching "The Core". Tripe. Added to that, how does the existence of the magnetic field prove the existence of a creator?

"(6) Proper Orbital Shape --- With a circumference of almost 600 million miles, the Earth's orbit around the Sun is nearly circular in order to minimize extreme temperature variations."

Funnily, the Moon has an identical Solar orbit. Unfortunately it's surface temperature varies from -220 degrees to +180 degrees.

"7) Perfect Orbital Radius --- Earth's 93 million-mile-average distance from the Sun (typically referred to as one astronomical unit or 1 A.U.) allows our planet to have an ideal surface temperature of 58 degrees Fahrenheit and an average ocean-water temperature of 45 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, in terms of insolation (i.e., incoming solar radiation), this orbital radius positions our world at the optimum location for life in the entire solar system."

Nonsense. Strip the atmosphere and we'll be identical to the Moon.

"(8) Orbital Speed and Duration --- With an orbital period of exactly 365.256 days, which the Earth can accomplish by racing through space at an incredible 66,600 mph (over 18 miles/sec !!), our planet's seasonal length is conducive for agriculture."

Yes - winter is PERFECT for crops. Notwithstanding that, our planet does not have seasons - or rather it does, but they're different depending on where you are. India has three seasons - and two of them involve torrential rain. None of this has anything to do with the Orbital Period, Eccentricity, Inclination, Perihelion or anything about our position in space.

Saturn has seasons.

"(9) Angle of Rotational Axis --- Also playing a role in Earth's favorable pattern of climate, the 23.5 degree tilt on its planetary axis permits the four annual seasons and, in the northern hemisphere, increases the amount of suitable land area and fertile soil needed for summer cultivation of crops."

Just covered that.

"10) Rate of Planetary Rotation --- Earth's sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.09 seconds allows for proper, uniform heating and cooling of its spinning surface (Job 38:14 / Gen. 8:22), as well as the re-circulation of its atmospheric winds and ocean currents in the global hydrologic cycle."

And that.

"The tolerances for life are extremely narrow, and if there are any other planets in the universe, it is very unlikely that any of them could have life, due to the extremely rigid conditions necessary for life to exist. The mathematical odds that all of these and other essential conditions happened by random chance are indeed astronomical -- in fact, beyond all probability. The ideal combination of prerequisites and requirements crucial to life observed only on Earth surely testifies to intelligent, purposeful design."

No. The tolerances for life are extremely broad. The only known prerequisite is liquid water. However, the tolerances for human life are rather narrow, because we're quite fragile. We've evolved to take advantage of our little ecological niche - rest assured that if our niche was slightly different there'd still be a highest life form, even if it isn't us.

The chance of one planet being habitable in the known Universe is 1. The chance of many planets in the known Universe being habitable is also 1. The Universe IS infinite. And as for "if there are any other planets in the universe", have they forgotten the 8 others within our own Solar System? And the 100+ Moons (including Europa - which seems to have them same conditions as Earth, just without land, below the ice crust surface)? And the 78 extrasolar planets discovered thus far? Nope - they've just ignored them.

Next up, problems with "Macroevolution"...

"SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:"

(Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method )

1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )"

Nonsense.

"In the fossil recordwe view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )"

Utter nonsense.

"2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter (Dobzhansky )"

If humans were used as test subjects, yes. However, we have animals and bacteria with generation times measured in hours. You can observe evolution - of resistance to an antibiotic - of bacteria through 1000 generations inside a week.

"3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )"

See above.

"4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )"

They're accusing real scientists of making stuff up?


"RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )"

How about from organic chemical elements then?

"2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )"

Clearly they don't. Clearly it requires alterations in the genetic material which are NOT lethal to the organism.

"3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )"

They certainly do. Why is this a problem now?

"4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )"

When? Where? By whom?

"5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe )."

A cell is hard to understand, so it must have been made? We always seem to drop back to this.

"(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, Nobel Prize for Chemistry )"

Yes. And? "very faithfully" does not mean that each cell is identical to the last. Explain cancer.

"(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )"

This is absurdity, dressed up with complicated words to make it look true.

"(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things are the most complex functioning systems in the universe. Science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal."

No they haven't - and no it isn't. For a start, the chimp and human genomes aren't even the same length...

A mutation is only fatal to a cell if it's fatal to a cell. Be aware that, while every nucleated cell in our body contains roughly the same DNA sequence, no two cells have the same sequence of genes activated at the same time. Is this "mutation" of cell products fatal to anyone? Is the brain cell's inability to produce the mucus that lung epithelial cells produce a bad thing?


I'm pausing for breath now. I've been here an hour - 40 minutes of it laughing that anyone could believe that the pseudo-science presented on that site bears any relation to fact.

It all boils down to "We're quite complicated, so someone made us, and we're going to ignore anything that says otherwise (and make some stuff up, dress it up in fancy words to make it look like facts)."

 

[code_kev]

So the great flood killed the dinosaurs....
So your saying that noah built his arc with dinosaurs running about. Right. On the matter of the arc, let's be honest, how the hell can he round up 2 of EVERY animal, all the MILLIONS of species,spread out over so many contenents, then after the flood redistribute them in the correct places? Also, how the hell could he build such a vessel, get the supplies etc etc etc.

Another one of Satan's deceptions.

So rather then give us some proof, you'l just point at satan again. Let's all remember ONE THING, the bible was written by people. Who says they didn't just pretend they spoke to God?

I loved the coal in labs comment, brilliant! *laughing his ass off*

 

[Famine]

So the great flood killed the dinosaurs....
So your saying that noah built his arc with dinosaurs running about. Right. On the matter of the arc, let's be honest, how the hell can he round up 2 of EVERY animal, all the MILLIONS of species,spread out over so many contenents, then after the flood redistribute them in the correct places? Also, how the hell could he build such a vessel, get the supplies etc etc etc.

Especially given the dimensions of the Ark, stated in the Bible (300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits - that's assumed to be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high or roughly 137m by 29m by 13.7m).

Not to mention the fact that 2 of every animal includes 2 of every species of dinosaur. Noah - you failinated. You R teh sux0r!

 

[KieranMurphy]

Go to http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html. This web site will asnwer alot of questions. I'd advise you to order some of the books, too.

Those people are either the world's most incompetent scientists or outright liars. The page on the Earth's magnetic field was laughable. Never trust a website claiming to be a scientific resource when it prints articles whose sole reference is the Bible and a single article in Science or Nature. A proper scientific article (i.e. one written by a scientist, not someone with a "Doctorate" from a degree mill) on will have references to actual original scientific research papers.

These people are a joke. They deserve to be laughed at the same way as Flat Earthers, Astrologers and Crop Circle idiots.

I'll ask it agin, how do you tell the difference between the "true" science these YECs do and the "false" science that Satan is responsible for. How do you know that the YEC scientists aren't actually followers of Satan and they're deceiving you? Seriously, if you can't trust anything because of Satan, how do you tell the truth from fiction?

Anyway, why don't got just smite his Satanic ass and let us all see the truth so we can go to heaven?


KM.

 

[code_kev]

Especially given the dimensions of the Ark, stated in the Bible (300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits - that's assumed to be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high or roughly 137m by 29m by 13.7m).

it uses tardis technology ofc, don't be stupid!

 

[Duke]

The Only one that is the true faith is The Pentecostal Christian Faith.

Just read between the lines whenever you subscribe to any belief or anything, as a matter of fact.

How can you possibly, with an apparently straight face and less than 2 hours apart, say these two sentences?

I'm appalled.