Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Dec 27, 2017

Ape-Men? 5

Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (p). Also, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (q). Claims were made—based on one partially complete australopithecine fossil, Australopithecus afarensis, (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (r) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (s). In 2006, a partial Australopithecus afarensis specimen—a 3-year-old baby—with clear apelike features—was announced (t). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (u).

p. “Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.”Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

q. “The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees.”Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement,” Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

r. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297,24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.

Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93,20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.

Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60,March 1983, pp. 279–317.

s. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.

t. Zeresenay Alemseged et al., “A Juvenile Early Hominin Skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia,” Nature,Vol. 443, 21 September 2006, pp. 296–301.

u. “At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. … [T]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.” Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,”American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.

“The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... ‘One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,’ says Berger.” James Shreeve, “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,” Science, Vol. 272,3 May 1996, p. 654.

“There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.”Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” Evolution as a Process,editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

“We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.” Ibid., pp. 348–349.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp3179991]

Pahu · Jan 12, 2018

Ape-Men? 6

For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (v). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (w). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (x).

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable. [In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.]

v. Francis Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577–578.

William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32,December, 1957, pp. 348–363.

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, “Oldest Bone Disease,” Nature, Vol. 349,24 January 1991, p. 288.

w. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

Jack Cuozzo, “Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,” The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4,Autumn 1987, pp. 33–40.

x. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past,” Science 81,October 1981, p. 49.

[FONT=&quot][]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26.

Pahu · Jan 17, 2018

Fossil Man

Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Castenedolo skeletons (a), Reck’s skeleton (b), and possibly others (c). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (d). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

a. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Imsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons.

As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the “Castenedolo” find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs.Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the un-fossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Again, fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

b. Bowden, pp. 183-193

c. Ibid., 78–79.

J. D. Whitney, “The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California,” Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard College, Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 258–288.

Bowden, pp. 76–78.

Cousins, pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

W. H. B., “Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, “The Case for the Calaveras Skull,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248–256.

Cousins and Whitney state that the Calaveras was fossilized. This does not mean that it was pre-flood. Fossilization depends on chemistry much more than time.

For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava that evolutionists would date at 25 million years old—too old to be human. See, for example:

Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294–301.

George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189–200.

d. Fix, pp. 98–105.

J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp. 316–318.

[FONT=&quot][]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26.

Pahu · Jan 31, 2018

Chemical Elements of Life 1

The chemical evolution of life is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen (a). However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.

Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon (b). One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earth’s surface since the first fossils formed.

Oxygen.No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earth’s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth (c). Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation (d). But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life (e). The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously—in other words, by creation.

a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).

b. Carbon is only the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] most abundant element, by weight, in the earth’s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.

c.“The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem.” Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen,”Science, Vol. 171, 5 February 1971, p. 442.

Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen.

[]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29.

Pahu · Feb 8, 2018

Chemical Elements of Life 2

Nitrogen. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments [f].

Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life [g].

f.“If there ever was a primitive soup[to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life], then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen.”J. Brooks and G. Shaw,Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359.

“No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed.”Abel and Trevors, p. 3.

g. “The acceptance of this theory[life’s evolution on earth]and its promulgation by many workers[scientists and researchers]who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous.” Ibid., p. 355.

Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders.

Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on earth.

Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contender—creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor “has no clothes.”

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences33.html]

Pahu · Feb 14, 2018

Proteins 1

Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed (a). Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken some water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen (b).

a. An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that “imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers.”Philip Morrison, “Earth’s Earliest Biosphere,” Scientific American,Vol. 250, April 1984, pp. 30–31.

Charles F. Davidson, “Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, 15 June 1965, pp. 1194–1205.

Steven A. Austin, “Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?” ICR Impact, No. 109, July 1982.

“In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks.” Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, “Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976, p. 1161.

“What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.” Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,Vol. 55, June 1966, p. 1365.
b. R. T. Brinkmann, “Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 23, 20 October 1969, pp. 5355–5368.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences34.html]

Pahu · Feb 21, 2018

Proteins 2

To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid (c). However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur (d). Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids (e).

c. “It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants],could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen.” Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

d. “But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in ‘self-organization’ becomes ‘blind belief.’ No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.” Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

e. “I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life]to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument[for the origin of life].” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 50.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences34.html]

Pahu · Feb 28, 2018

Proteins 3

The proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed (f). The many attempts to show how life might have arisen on earth have instead shown (a) the futility of that effort (g), (b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life (h), and (c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.

f. “The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.” D. E. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation,” Nature,Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.

Pitman, p. 140.

Duane T. Gish,Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life,ICR Technical Monograph, No. 1 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).

g. “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick, p. 88.

Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.”He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [See Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers,” Scientific American,Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]

h. Robert Shapiro, Origins (New York: Bantam Books, 1986).

The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

Organic molecules in life are of two types: proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Nucleic acids, which are incredibly complex, were not produced, nor would any knowledgeable person expect them to be produced.

The protein “building blocks” were merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory. (In 2011, several more amino acids were found in Miller’s old experimental materials, but the more complex amino acids found in life were still missing. See Eric T. Parker et al., “Primordial Synthesis of Amines and Amino Acids in a 1958 Miller H[SUB]2[/SUB]S-Rich Spark Discharge Experiment,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 March 2011, pp. 1–6.)

Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.

Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness. [See: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.html#wp1009545]

Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

“The story of the slow paralysis of research on life’s origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of origin-of-life studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.” Behe, “Molecular Machines,” pp. 30–31.

Rick Pierson, “Life before Life,” Discover, August 2004, p. 8.

[FONT=&quot]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29.

Pahu · Mar 7, 2018

The First Cell 1

If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell (a).

a.“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the world’s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer. Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.

We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Ibid, p. 43.

Here Dawkins states that natural selection, not chance, accounts for this “apparent” design. While natural selection accounts for microevolution, it certainly cannot produce macroevolution. [See "Natural Selection" on page 8.]

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”Denton, p. 264.

“Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.” Ibid. p. 342.

“We have seen that self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution appear too complex to have arisen suddenly from a prebiotic soup. This conclusion applies both to nucleic acid systems and to hypothetical protein-based genetic systems.”Shapiro, p. 207.

“We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life.” Ibid. p. 299.

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.

[FONT=&quot]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 30.

Pahu · Mar 17, 2018

The First Cell 2

There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins (b).

b . “The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination.”Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine,editor Robert M. Pool (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), p. 7.

“No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides.”Kenyon, p. A-20.

“If we can indeed come to understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be able to construct one—only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely dares to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.”George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 45.

Experts in this field hardly ever discuss publicly how the first cell could have evolved. However, the world’s leading evolutionists know this problem exists. For example, on 27 July 1979, Luther D. Sunderland taped an interview with Dr. David Raup, Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This interview was later transcribed and authenticated by both parties. Sunderland told Raup, “Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum (Natural History)] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American Museum of Natural History] could give me any explanation of the origination of the first cell.” Dr. Raup replied, “I can’t either.”

“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.”David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406–407.

“Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve.”Crick, p. 153.

This fascination explains why the “origin of life” topic frequently arises—despite so much evidence showing that it cannot happen by natural processes. Speculations abound.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences35.html#wp5213232]

LaurieB · Mar 20, 2018

Ninety nine percent of all scientists say Evolution is true. Most churches have accepted evolution. This, in no way, changes what God did.

Pahu · Mar 20, 2018

LaurieB said:

I doubt that ninety nine percent of all scientists say Evolution is true. Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

01-evol1.htm

As for most churches accepting evolution, they would have to reject Christianity first since evolution teaches the cause for everything was without God. Christianity teaches God created everything. The two teachings conflict.

LaurieB · Mar 31, 2018

No. 99.5% of all scientists (including Christians) know that Evolution is true. If you have to deny Science to keep your faith, so be it.

notuptome · Mar 31, 2018

LaurieB said:

What is the source of your data? Both sides in this debate must admit that they do not have all the answers and rely on assumptions to fill in the gaps.

Science cannot explain irreducible complexity.

William Paley wrote the Watchmaker to which Richard Dawkins wrote the Blind Watchmaker response. Natural selection gives the appearance of intelligent design. Yet science cannot explain how the termite who relies on a bacterium to digest the wood fiber it lives on evolved. The bacterium cannot live in the presence of oxygen and the termite must have help in digesting the wood fiber.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Pahu · Mar 31, 2018

Genetic Distances 1

Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with sophisticated genetic techniques.

Proteins.“Genetic distances” can be calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of evolution (a).

An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein. For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the rattlesnake was man (b). Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions (c).

a. Dr. Colin Patterson—Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History)—gave a talk on 5 November 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History. He compared the amino acid sequences in several proteins of different animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, have been taught in classrooms for decades. Patterson explained to a stunned audience that this new information contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, “The theory makes a prediction; we’ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.” Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he admitted “evolution was a faith,” he was “duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way,”and “evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life].” “Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory,”Audio Tape Transcription and Summaryby Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. For other statements from Patterson’s presentation see: Tom Bethell, “Agnostic Evolutionists,” Harper’s Magazine, February 1985, pp. 49–61.

“... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ...”Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences,July 1986, p. 280.

“It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm [the theory of evolution]took shape….One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.” Ibid., p. 282.

“Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.” Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules ... or Both?” Nature, Vol. 406, 20 July 2000, p. 230.

b. Robert Bayne Brown, Abstracts: 31[SUP]st[/SUP] International Science and Engineering Fair (Washington D.C.: Science Service,1980), p. 113.

Ginny Gray, “Student Project ‘Rattles’ Science Fair Judges,” Issues and Answers,December 1980, p. 3.

While the rattlesnake’s cytochrome c was most similar to man’s, man’s cytochrome c was most similar to that of the rhesus monkey. (If this seems like a contradiction, consider that City B could be the closest city to City A, but City C might be the closest city to City A.)

c. “As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.”Colin Patterson et al., p. 179.

[FONT=&quot][]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32.

Depleted · Mar 31, 2018

LaurieB said:

You're stat is wrong.

And it does matter. If the first thing God tells us in his book is a lie, why believe the rest?

Depleted · Mar 31, 2018

Pahu said:

Genetic Distances 1

Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with sophisticated genetic techniques.

Proteins.“Genetic distances” can be calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of evolution (a).

An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein. For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the rattlesnake was man (b). Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions (c).

a. Dr. Colin Patterson—Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History)—gave a talk on 5 November 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History. He compared the amino acid sequences in several proteins of different animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, have been taught in classrooms for decades. Patterson explained to a stunned audience that this new information contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, “The theory makes a prediction; we’ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.” Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he admitted “evolution was a faith,” he was “duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way,”and “evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life].” “Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory,”Audio Tape Transcription and Summaryby Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. For other statements from Patterson’s presentation see: Tom Bethell, “Agnostic Evolutionists,” Harper’s Magazine, February 1985, pp. 49–61.

“... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ...”Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences,July 1986, p. 280.

“It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm [the theory of evolution]took shape….One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.” Ibid., p. 282.

“Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.” Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules ... or Both?” Nature, Vol. 406, 20 July 2000, p. 230.

b. Robert Bayne Brown, Abstracts: 31[SUP]st[/SUP] International Science and Engineering Fair (Washington D.C.: Science Service,1980), p. 113.

Ginny Gray, “Student Project ‘Rattles’ Science Fair Judges,” Issues and Answers,December 1980, p. 3.

While the rattlesnake’s cytochrome c was most similar to man’s, man’s cytochrome c was most similar to that of the rhesus monkey. (If this seems like a contradiction, consider that City B could be the closest city to City A, but City C might be the closest city to City A.)

c. “As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.”Colin Patterson et al., p. 179.

[FONT=&quot][]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32.

Some things I keep wondering. Why are you posting an entire book, page by page, on here? And, is it your book?

Pahu · Mar 31, 2018

Depleted said:

l find it interesting. I am sharing facts you my also find interesting. No, it is not my book.

Depleted · Mar 31, 2018

Pahu said:

Do you have permission from the author to post the book?

Pahu · Mar 31, 2018

Depleted said:

Yes. The information I am sharing is not a copyright violation. The author, Walt Brown, has given permission:

“Any portion of this book may be reproduced for teaching or classroom use.  For all other uses, simply reference this book and Walt Brown as your source.

“There is no charge for reading or printing any or all portions of it.”

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Preface

Science Disproves Evolution

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Depleted

Guest

Depleted

Guest

Senior Member

Depleted

Guest

Senior Member