The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
To all those who insist in following the Cult that is "evolution" here are yet more of the infinite flaws in the fairy tale. This is the side the evolutionist scientists of course don't tell you.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> FF, I doubt you even have the faintest idea what the 1st law of
> thermodynamics is, let alone the second.
> You're just quoting some fat hippy who sent a letter to some people.
>
> I know the second law of thermodynamics and the first.
Muh.
That's about as convincing as saying God exists, because he does.
Now, just for me, state what the laws of thermodynamics are in your own words, without quoting a million words from some random source.
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> FF, I doubt you even have the faintest idea what the 1st law of
> thermodynamics is, let alone the second.
> You're just quoting some fat hippy who sent a letter to some people.
>
> I know the second law of thermodynamics and the first.
Muh.
That's about as convincing as saying God exists, because he does.
Now, just for me, state what the laws of thermodynamics are in your own words, without quoting a million words from some random source.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Oh, I've not reported FF's post - people are banned for stealing and
> posting reviews (trying to win gads), not sure if FF would be kicked
> off here.
>
> I'm not particularly bothered either way, but if anyone wants to have
> a go with the report button...
Except I DIDN'T COPY IT!
> Oh, I've not reported FF's post - people are banned for stealing and
> posting reviews (trying to win gads), not sure if FF would be kicked
> off here.
>
> I'm not particularly bothered either way, but if anyone wants to have
> a go with the report button...
Except I DIDN'T COPY IT!
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my
> brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
>
> Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let
> us first address the matter from a point of logic and common
> understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a
> big
> ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people
> think
> that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans....
>
>
> [URL]http://www.inplainsite.org/html/overview_of_christianity.html[/URL]
> to see where this is from: Scroll down a short way to the header 'How
> may we know there is a god?' - The 9th paragraph down starts
> with some familiar words.
>
> BUSTED!
>
> It isn't even a direct paste of the article, FF's tagged on his own
> (brief) introduction to make it read better.
> I think he pasted some other stuff after that too, but I couldn't be
> bothered checking.
Except I DIDN'T COPY THAT OUT!
>
> I may not be christian, but wasn't one of those commandmants 'thou
> shalt not steal'?
> Or was there an asterisk - except intellectual property?
Again, DIDN'T STEAL.
>
>
>
> Oh well, having read the article now, I can summarise it - it doesn't
> create much of an argument against evolution, it just points out that
> evolution doesn't absolutely conclusively prove anything, there's
> still room for the creationist alternative.
>
>
> However, on the side of evolution is solid proof that the scientific
> basis for evolution is factual - that is, hereditary characteristics
> passed in DNA, and genetic mutations changing DNA.
> Also, as a matter of simple logic, everyone, even Forest Fan agrees
> that natural selection must occur in reality.
> Thus put the two together and you have the most solid proof you could
> ever hope for that the *process* of evolution does happen.
AGAIN EVOLUTION IS THEORY.
>
> This means the two sides are now:
> -Creationists - evolution happens, but it started from when god
> created man, animals and stuff.
> -Evolutionists - evolution happens, and it started from when the
> first molecule of DNA formed in a chance chemical reaction.
>
Creatonists = God made the world Evolutionists = Sea Slime universe
>
> Of course, those who understand the science happily agree that the
> laws of entropy are of absolutely no significance to
> evolution. FF doesn't agree because he doesn't understand the law
> itself, he just pasted someone else's thoughs on it (who also failed
> to appreciate the nature of the law). Consequently FF can't
> understand where the original poster went wrong, and clings to a
> theory he doesn't understand simply because it suggests another
> theory which he happens to believe in.
Evolution contradicts the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
>
> So far as I'm concerned, the topic's just about dired up:
> Evolution works in practice. It suggests a common ancestor, but
> doesn't conclusively disprove the thoery that god created man et al,
> and evolution began from that point, thus giving the creationists a
> niché within in the theory.
>
Except CREATION populates the earth today. Nothing is EVOLVING!
>
> And I used all 4 of the new tags in this post. Go me :^)
And I used none.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my
> brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
>
> Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let
> us first address the matter from a point of logic and common
> understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a
> big
> ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people
> think
> that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans....
>
>
> [URL]http://www.inplainsite.org/html/overview_of_christianity.html[/URL]
> to see where this is from: Scroll down a short way to the header 'How
> may we know there is a god?' - The 9th paragraph down starts
> with some familiar words.
>
> BUSTED!
>
> It isn't even a direct paste of the article, FF's tagged on his own
> (brief) introduction to make it read better.
> I think he pasted some other stuff after that too, but I couldn't be
> bothered checking.
Except I DIDN'T COPY THAT OUT!
>
> I may not be christian, but wasn't one of those commandmants 'thou
> shalt not steal'?
> Or was there an asterisk - except intellectual property?
Again, DIDN'T STEAL.
>
>
>
> Oh well, having read the article now, I can summarise it - it doesn't
> create much of an argument against evolution, it just points out that
> evolution doesn't absolutely conclusively prove anything, there's
> still room for the creationist alternative.
>
>
> However, on the side of evolution is solid proof that the scientific
> basis for evolution is factual - that is, hereditary characteristics
> passed in DNA, and genetic mutations changing DNA.
> Also, as a matter of simple logic, everyone, even Forest Fan agrees
> that natural selection must occur in reality.
> Thus put the two together and you have the most solid proof you could
> ever hope for that the *process* of evolution does happen.
AGAIN EVOLUTION IS THEORY.
>
> This means the two sides are now:
> -Creationists - evolution happens, but it started from when god
> created man, animals and stuff.
> -Evolutionists - evolution happens, and it started from when the
> first molecule of DNA formed in a chance chemical reaction.
>
Creatonists = God made the world Evolutionists = Sea Slime universe
>
> Of course, those who understand the science happily agree that the
> laws of entropy are of absolutely no significance to
> evolution. FF doesn't agree because he doesn't understand the law
> itself, he just pasted someone else's thoughs on it (who also failed
> to appreciate the nature of the law). Consequently FF can't
> understand where the original poster went wrong, and clings to a
> theory he doesn't understand simply because it suggests another
> theory which he happens to believe in.
Evolution contradicts the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
>
> So far as I'm concerned, the topic's just about dired up:
> Evolution works in practice. It suggests a common ancestor, but
> doesn't conclusively disprove the thoery that god created man et al,
> and evolution began from that point, thus giving the creationists a
> niché within in the theory.
>
Except CREATION populates the earth today. Nothing is EVOLVING!
>
> And I used all 4 of the new tags in this post. Go me :^)
And I used none.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> FF, I doubt you even have the faintest idea what the 1st law of
> thermodynamics is, let alone the second.
> You're just quoting some fat hippy who sent a letter to some people.
I know the second law of thermodynamics and the first.
>
>
> If we all started a topic and based all our views on some letter, so
> full of bullshite it's quite hard to see the letters, that got sent
> somewhere, well - we'd all be as retarded as you.
What, can't argue with science?
> FF, I doubt you even have the faintest idea what the 1st law of
> thermodynamics is, let alone the second.
> You're just quoting some fat hippy who sent a letter to some people.
I know the second law of thermodynamics and the first.
>
>
> If we all started a topic and based all our views on some letter, so
> full of bullshite it's quite hard to see the letters, that got sent
> somewhere, well - we'd all be as retarded as you.
What, can't argue with science?
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up
> DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
>
> I never stated that evolution was the correct theory. I merely have
> demonstrated that evolution is an entirely plausible system for
> evolving higher life forms from simpler ones over time.
But the second law of thermodynamics states it is not "an entirely plausible system".
> In the eyeball experiment, they did recreate an eyeball as we know
> it, but they then evolved it further to see what would happen. Thus
> the conclusion that evolution could have done alot better with the
> eyeball design, but once it reached a satisfactory design it stopped
> there.
Evolution of the eyeball alone is impossible. An eye either works or does not. Babies are born with the full size of their eyes, WHEN could the evolving take place?
> As for my comment above, do you deny that evolution is a possiblity?
> (ignoring the fact that it goes directly against Creationism, taking
> it as a scientific theory separate from anything else}.
I accept EVOLUTION as a RELIGION, but NOT as SCIENCE. The whole theory is based upon IF's, BUT's and MAYBE's. The second law of thermodynamics is not the only impossibility with evolution, but it is the most CONCRETE IMPOSSIBILITY.
> I will now attempt to read your monster of a post, and will comment
> on it shortly.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up
> DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
>
> I never stated that evolution was the correct theory. I merely have
> demonstrated that evolution is an entirely plausible system for
> evolving higher life forms from simpler ones over time.
But the second law of thermodynamics states it is not "an entirely plausible system".
> In the eyeball experiment, they did recreate an eyeball as we know
> it, but they then evolved it further to see what would happen. Thus
> the conclusion that evolution could have done alot better with the
> eyeball design, but once it reached a satisfactory design it stopped
> there.
Evolution of the eyeball alone is impossible. An eye either works or does not. Babies are born with the full size of their eyes, WHEN could the evolving take place?
> As for my comment above, do you deny that evolution is a possiblity?
> (ignoring the fact that it goes directly against Creationism, taking
> it as a scientific theory separate from anything else}.
I accept EVOLUTION as a RELIGION, but NOT as SCIENCE. The whole theory is based upon IF's, BUT's and MAYBE's. The second law of thermodynamics is not the only impossibility with evolution, but it is the most CONCRETE IMPOSSIBILITY.
> I will now attempt to read your monster of a post, and will comment
> on it shortly.
Oh, I've not reported FF's post - people are banned for stealing and posting reviews (trying to win gads), not sure if FF would be kicked off here.
I'm not particularly bothered either way, but if anyone wants to have a go with the report button...
I'm not particularly bothered either way, but if anyone wants to have a go with the report button...
Oh no! I deleted the bit that was in italics.
Oh well.
Sorry I didn't post in time to save you all that effort Tallen. Oh well, I'm sure you had fun anyway :^)
Oh well.
Sorry I didn't post in time to save you all that effort Tallen. Oh well, I'm sure you had fun anyway :^)
Forest Fan wrote:
> Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my
> brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
>
> Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let
> us first address the matter from a point of logic and common
> understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big
> ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think
> that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans....
[URL]http://www.inplainsite.org/html/overview_of_christianity.html[/URL] to see where this is from: Scroll down a short way to the header 'How may we know there is a god?' - The 9th paragraph down starts with some familiar words.
BUSTED!
It isn't even a direct paste of the article, FF's tagged on his own (brief) introduction to make it read better.
I think he pasted some other stuff after that too, but I couldn't be bothered checking.
I may not be christian, but wasn't one of those commandmants 'thou shalt not steal'?
Or was there an asterisk - except intellectual property?
Oh well, having read the article now, I can summarise it - it doesn't create much of an argument against evolution, it just points out that evolution doesn't absolutely conclusively prove anything, there's still room for the creationist alternative.
However, on the side of evolution is solid proof that the scientific basis for evolution is factual - that is, hereditary characteristics passed in DNA, and genetic mutations changing DNA.
Also, as a matter of simple logic, everyone, even Forest Fan agrees that natural selection must occur in reality.
Thus put the two together and you have the most solid proof you could ever hope for that the *process* of evolution does happen.
This means the two sides are now:
-Creationists - evolution happens, but it started from when god created man, animals and stuff.
-Evolutionists - evolution happens, and it started from when the first molecule of DNA formed in a chance chemical reaction.
Of course, those who understand the science happily agree that the laws of entropy are of absolutely no significance to evolution. FF doesn't agree because he doesn't understand the law itself, he just pasted someone else's thoughs on it (who also failed to appreciate the nature of the law). Consequently FF can't understand where the original poster went wrong, and clings to a theory he doesn't understand simply because it suggests another theory which he happens to believe in.
So far as I'm concerned, the topic's just about dired up:
Evolution works in practice. It suggests a common ancestor, but doesn't conclusively disprove the thoery that god created man et al, and evolution began from that point, thus giving the creationists a niché within in the theory.
And I used all 4 of the new tags in this post. Go me :^)
> Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my
> brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
>
> Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let
> us first address the matter from a point of logic and common
> understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big
> ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think
> that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans....
[URL]http://www.inplainsite.org/html/overview_of_christianity.html[/URL] to see where this is from: Scroll down a short way to the header 'How may we know there is a god?' - The 9th paragraph down starts with some familiar words.
BUSTED!
It isn't even a direct paste of the article, FF's tagged on his own (brief) introduction to make it read better.
I think he pasted some other stuff after that too, but I couldn't be bothered checking.
I may not be christian, but wasn't one of those commandmants 'thou shalt not steal'?
Or was there an asterisk - except intellectual property?
Oh well, having read the article now, I can summarise it - it doesn't create much of an argument against evolution, it just points out that evolution doesn't absolutely conclusively prove anything, there's still room for the creationist alternative.
However, on the side of evolution is solid proof that the scientific basis for evolution is factual - that is, hereditary characteristics passed in DNA, and genetic mutations changing DNA.
Also, as a matter of simple logic, everyone, even Forest Fan agrees that natural selection must occur in reality.
Thus put the two together and you have the most solid proof you could ever hope for that the *process* of evolution does happen.
This means the two sides are now:
-Creationists - evolution happens, but it started from when god created man, animals and stuff.
-Evolutionists - evolution happens, and it started from when the first molecule of DNA formed in a chance chemical reaction.
Of course, those who understand the science happily agree that the laws of entropy are of absolutely no significance to evolution. FF doesn't agree because he doesn't understand the law itself, he just pasted someone else's thoughs on it (who also failed to appreciate the nature of the law). Consequently FF can't understand where the original poster went wrong, and clings to a theory he doesn't understand simply because it suggests another theory which he happens to believe in.
So far as I'm concerned, the topic's just about dired up:
Evolution works in practice. It suggests a common ancestor, but doesn't conclusively disprove the thoery that god created man et al, and evolution began from that point, thus giving the creationists a niché within in the theory.
And I used all 4 of the new tags in this post. Go me :^)
I've had me luch, now onto the next bit:
> Every thoughtful person believes in a series of causes and effect in
> nature, each effect becoming the cause of some other effect. Now the
> acceptance of this fact logically compels one to admit that there
> must be a beginning to any series – that is, there could never have
> been a first effect if there had not been a First Cause. This First
> Cause to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where God came from
> is not a satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might
> as well deny the existence of the millionth effect which, for the
> sake of argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit
> one cause as ever having existed, I am bound eventually by induction
> to arrive at the First Cause. We will explore the subject of the
> origin of life later in a more in-depth and scientific context.
> “But wait a minute,” says the evolutionist, “Isn’t evolution a
> science and creation just a religious belief?” If this common idea
> were true, why would so many highly qualified scientists today accept
> the direct creation of a functioning world (just as it says in
> Genesis, the first book of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) and reject
> evolution? In fact, the modern creation movement is a fast-growing
> minority.
> In the US alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are
> upwards of 10,000 professional scientists who believe in biblical
> creation. In 1993 in South Korea, for instance, the Korea Association
> of Creation Research already had a membership of over 1,000
> scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in
> some area of science, and including 100 full-ranking university
> professors. The Moscow Creation Science Fellowship was formed with 10
> members a short while ago. A year later it had escalated to 120
> holders of advanced science degrees.
> Most university professors have one earned doctorate; we know of
> members of the creation movement (e.g. A.E. Wilder-Smith) who have
> the rare distinction of three such doctorates. Historically, most
> scientific disciplines were founded by great scientists (Newton,
> Pasteur, Faraday, to name but a few) who were all creationists.
No-one has ever said that science and religion cannot co-exist. It is traditionally thought that science and religion contravene each other, as science tries to find a 'rational logic' behind the universe whereas traditional religions say 'God created it this way'. {Your} God {or another} may well have started off creation. Scientific facts, observations and reasonings go for the evolution theory because it fits the given information the best. It may well turn out in the end that God created us, and s/he created the evidence supporting evolution, or that s/he started off evolution 'in the beginning'. Or it could just be random chemicals coming together in this particular way that started it all. The only true way to know this would be to travel back to the point that this all happened and observe the happenings.
As for scientific reasoning, take Sir Isaac Newton as an example. He 'invented' the laws of motion. These were accepted by the scientific community and held to be correct for all instances, all time. Then Albert Einstein came along and said that, yes they are correct, but only under these specific circumstances {sub-light speed travel}. For anything outside these circumstances (and indeed as a generalisation of the laws of motion), we have relativity. i.e the laws of motion are a subset of relativity.
So evolution you claim is false. I say evolution fits all the given facts, until more facts are found. We then may extend evolution, or find it to be a subset of something else.
> Right: Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who holds three science
> doctorates
>
> Real science depends on measuring or watching something happen, and
> checking it by doing it again. Even if, for example, reptiles did
> change into birds millions of years ago, as evolutionists allege, the
> scientific method could never prove that as a fact, because it was
> not observed happening. If you could somehow turn a reptile into a
> bird today, even that wouldn’t prove it happened millions of years
> ago. Equally, you can’t insist that God should repeat the miraculous
> creation of many groups of birds and reptiles, programmed to
> reproduce after their kind, just so you can watch it.
See the eyeball experiment. Evolution has been proven through repeat experiments.
> Both are ideas held on faith; each belief system (evolution or
> creation) offers arguments and evidences to bolster that faith.
> Creationists maintain that theirs is a reasonable and logical belief
> system, backed up by the weight of evidence observable in the
> present.
> As we study evolution, let us first consider the morphological
> evidence for it. Firstly: Evidence from Classification - In his study
> of the various organisms in nature, the evolutionist finds some
> organisms to be very simple in structure and others more complicated.
> He finds it possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a
> fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex, or, as
> he would put it, from the ‘lower’ to the ‘highest’. Thus he places a
> single-celled animal like amoeba first, and next to it or ‘above’ it
> the multicellular hydra, and next to it amphioxus, and then a fish,
> an amphibian, a reptile and a lower mammal. Next to the lower mammal
> he places a lower ape. Next to that a higher ape, and lastly the most
> complex of all – Man. When he has finished arranging these creatures
> in that order, from the simpler to the more complicated, he turns
> round to the creationist and says: “See, here is a proof for the
> theory of evolution, showing how the complicated evolved out of the
> simpler ones!”
> This is a strange proof indeed! Such proofs are not wanting in any
> sphere of life, for simple and complicated things which lend
> themselves to such arrangements exist everywhere. By arranging his
> books on a shelf in a graded system, depending on the size or
> complexity of its contents, a student can also prove the ‘evolution’
> of his books. The reader may well see the absurdity of such an
> argument, for it assumes the very thing to be proved. Nevertheless it
> has deceived thousands of students in the past and is still deceiving
> thousands more who allow themselves to be carried away by sheer
> weight of ‘scientific authority’, instead of thinking for themselves
> clearly and logically.
Here you are taking books as an example. If you have, say at one end, a simple book on how to peel an apple, and at the other end a complex book on quantum mechanics, then yes you can say that evolution theory here is duff. Because it is. But the who in their right mind would try and evolve quantum out of an apple peeler? If, however, all books were the same subject, then you could order them simplest to most complex (ie book on addition through to book on Calculus), then you can show the 'evolution' of the subject matter through the ages.
Most of the scientific results of the past few hundred years can quite easily be mis-interpreted to give different results. In the above example, we are not evolving the book, we are evolving the subject matter. BIG difference.
> In his book A Critique of Evolution Theory the late well-known
> evolutionist T.H. Morgan of Columbia University admits that the proof
> from classification is in fact no real proof at all. On page 9 of the
> same book he says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed
> out to pupils of his who believe in evolution, they are resentful. We
> may boldly affirm that this proof is absurd; and the fact that
> organisms can be arranged in a certain order does not preclude the
> possibility of both the simple and the complex coming into existence
> simultaneously. The Bible says that all animal life was created in
> two days (Genesis 1:20-27). With God such things are possible.
Your note about God creating all lower and higher life forms at once could well be true. It is just a bit hard to understand then however that archeologists find remains and carbon date them, and we see that the higher life form lived more recently to the lower from which it allegedly evolved. If your point was true then we should have found they lived and died all at the same era in history, not in a continual timeline.
> Secondly: Proof from Comparative Anatomy – When a student of anatomy
> studies the structure of various animals in detail such as the bones,
> the muscles, the arteries, the veins, etc., it becomes apparent to
> him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them
> all. For example the anatomy of cat, dog, monkey and man resemble
> each other a great deal, taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle, and
> nerve for nerve, even to the smallest detail. It may also be stated
> that the resemblance between the animals themselves varies. Thus a
> cat resembles a dog more than a monkey, and a monkey resembles a man
> more than it resembles a dog. Based on this similarity of structure
> animals can be arranged in a fairly graded system. Again, comparing
> the anatomy of the wing of a bird, the paddle of a whale and the arm
> of a man it is observed that they are all constructed on the same
> general plan taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle and nerve for
> nerve. The evolutionist contends that such similarity of structure
> can be explained only on the basis of evolution, namely, that they
> all had a common ancestor.
> Similarity of structure is a scientific fact, for one can observe it
> on studying the anatomy of these animals. But the interpretation put
> on this similarity can reasonably be denied. For this similarity of
> structure can with equal reasonableness be used as an argument in
> favour of the doctrine of the special creation. For instance, if the
> various colleges of the city were compared, one is sure to find many
> points of similarity. Each may have an entrance, an office room, a
> Principal’s room, a library with books, class rooms with blackboards
> and seating arrangements, etc. This comparison may be extended even
> to minor details, to show that the resemblance between two Science
> Colleges is greater than the resemblance between an Arts College and
> a Science College. But from this similarity of structure it cannot be
> argued that the biggest (first grade) Science College building came
> out of a smaller (second grade) Science College building or that both
> Science and Arts College buildings evolved out of a common ancestor!
> For we know that they were all constructed separately. Yet they may
> well have been planned and constructed by one architect at one and
> the same time. Similarity in design in the case of colleges does not
> prove their evolution; neither does similarity of design prove
> evolution in the case of living organisms. To the believer in the
> Bible, similarity in plan of structure among living organisms merely
> establishes the fact of one great
> Architect, the Creator, who had in mind one great pattern which He
> used while making His natural species with such modifications as were
> necessary for their different conditions of life. He could as well
> have created them all on different patterns, the dog with four legs,
> the cat with five, the cow with six and the elephant with nineteen!
> He could have put the nostrils of the monkey behind its ears and
> given man two heads! But as they all have to live upon the same
> earth, breathing the same air and drinking the same kind of water, it
> was but reasonable that a wise Creator should construct them all on a
> similar pattern, allowing modifications wherever necessary. Thus
> similarity of structure, as revealed in comparative anatomy, may as
> well point to a common Creator as to any evolutionary process.
Entirely valid. They could all have been made from the same 'template' as it were, by the Creator in two days. This explains the similarities between spieces, as does evolution.
> Now let us consider the evidences for evolution from blood
> relationship. Firstly: Blood Precipitation Test – This test is
> supposed to support the theory of evolution by demonstrating ‘blood
> relationship’ that exists between man and the lower animals. George
> Nuttal of Cambridge, during his investigations which led to the
> discovery of vaccination, came across a by-product known as the
> anti-human serum. Human blood added to this liquid forms a thick
> white precipitate; with the blood of a bird there is no reaction, but
> the blood of mammals like lemurs, monkeys and chimpanzees yields
> varying degrees of precipitate, slightest in the case of lemurs and
> heaviest in that of chimpanzee. This similarity in the structure of
> the blood of man and ape is supposed to prove their common ancestry.
> Now, it is true that some similarity exists between the blood of
> mammals, which may even admit of their being arranged in a graded
> system. But this chemical similarity cannot prove evolution. Pursuing
> the same logic we might conclude that the pen knife, the bread knife
> and the sword have evolved from a common ancestor! For there is a
> similarity in the chemical make-up of these articles, and they can be
> arranged in a graded system according to the degree of hardness of
> each. However, further research along the same lines has show that
> the tiger and the whale are close of kin as are also the parrot and
> the ostrich. But such inconvenient facts are ignored by the
> evolutionist.
What is so remarkable about this? Both tiger and whale are air breathing mammals. Both parrot and ostrich are egg laying birds.
> Blood analysis has revealed other interesting facts as shown by B.C.
> Nelson. The specific gravity of human blood is 1059; of the pig and
> the hare 1060; of the frog 1055-56; of the snake 1055, and the
> monkey’s 1054.9. From this table we can see that the frog and the
> snake are closer to man that the monkey, while our nearest relation
> is the pig!
> It may look somewhat strange to base our relationship with the pig
> on flimsy evidence such as the similarity in the specific gravity of
> the blood. Yet the suggestion of a piggian ancestry was the theme for
> a University extension lecture in India a few years ago by a learned
> professor of Zoology holding a Ph.D. degree of the University of
> London. Of course he had many other facts of similarity to the
> support his thesis that we have closer ties with the Pig than with
> the Monkey or the Ape!
> But this is not all. If the blood test be a criterion of common
> ancestry, why not the milk test too? And chemical analysis shows that
> the animal which stands nearest to man, in this respect, is neither
> the monkey nor the pig but – the DONKEY!
> Some have even found support for this ancestry in the traditional
> customs of some primitive peoples. For among the tribal people in
> Asia there is still the practice of feeding infants when they are
> born with donkey’s milk instead of human milk. To what ridiculous
> conclusions do evolutionists lead us at times!
> Secondly: Proof from Geographical Distribution – The proof from blood
> precipitation test and the proof from geographical distribution have
> not been presented by evolutionists in recent years. However, they do
> find a place in some text books of zoology, and for that reason they
> are considered in this series.
> The proof from geographical distribution essentially consists in
> setting up a ridiculous idea of special creation, not warranted by
> the Bible and knocking it down again by ridicule. And because such an
> idea of special creation is unthinkable, evolutionary interpretation
> for the present distribution of animals and plants presumably is
> correct. Charles Darwin noted the similarity between the fauna of the
> Galapagos Islands (500 miles off the west coast of South America) and
> those of the main continent, and argued that such similarity was
> inexplicable on the basis of special creation (i.e. the idea that
> each species was created separately in its particular locality). This
> interpretation of special creation is not implied in the Scriptures.
> For the Bible not only permits variation within the ‘kind’ created
> but also clearly indicates that all land animals migrated from a
> single spot after the Genesis flood. Evolutionists argue that our
> finding marsupial mammals only in Australia is due to the fact that
> the continent got separated from other parts of the world before the
> other mammals evolved.
Not 'before the other mammals evolved', but 'so far back in time that the mammals split early on in the tree-diagram of mammals'
> To this Duperett’s answer seems to be the
> right explanation. According to him the fauna of Australia and
> Tasmania is not an indigenous survival from the Mesozoic era but come
> there by immigration at a recent epoch (Transformations of Animal
> World, p. 306). This agrees with the Scriptural account. However, on
> the question of distribution evolutionists themselves are sharply
> divided, and in the current debate this is not usually presented as
> evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution.
> “But what about the fossils,” asks the evolutionist, “don’t they show
> evolution?” Darwin stated, quite correctly, that if his theory was
> true, there should be very large numbers of ‘in-between types’ found
> as fossils. If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned
> into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils
> showing these stages – part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale,
> part-feather?
> Darwin said that the absence of such intermediates was the ‘most
> obvious and serious objection’ against his theory. 120 years later,
> Dr. David Raup, the head of one of the great museums in America, said
> that the situation concerning missing links ‘hasn’t changed much’ and
> that ‘we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we
> had in Darwin’s time’.
> So what do we have? Evolution expects millions of in-between forms.
> Some evolutionists claim there are some – maybe a handful of such
> in-between fossil types. Other leading experts say there are none.
Ahh, the 'missing link' again. All I can say to this is yes, there are missing links. But consider the timescale, we are talking about a billion years here. Can you fathom just how long this actually is? Billion. Say it. Its said and done in a second. Think of a year, of what happens to the world in a year. Millions live and die. You get a bit older. Think about living the whole of your life. I will be kind and grant you one hundred years. My, look how the world has changed in those hundred years. Look back to when you were young, and look at you now, old and frail, your kids kids running about outside. Now your kids kids grow up, become old. 200 years have passed. The world has changed beyond all recognition. In 200 years. Extend to 500, then 1000 years. What is it like now? Then a thousand thousand years. A thousand thousand thousand years. How many fossils do you think have survived this amount of time? If you think all of them, well, we wouldn't be able to move for dead animals, fossils and the like. And you expect me to dig up all the fossils to show one species evolutionary trail. Do the math, this is tending towards the impossible. If there is one thing in this world that is pure, it is mathematics. And maths says it is very near damn impossible to collect all the missing links. Not impossible, but so damn near you might as well try and win the national lottery every day of your life.
I will pause here for a sanity check, and also to go actually do some work :)
> Every thoughtful person believes in a series of causes and effect in
> nature, each effect becoming the cause of some other effect. Now the
> acceptance of this fact logically compels one to admit that there
> must be a beginning to any series – that is, there could never have
> been a first effect if there had not been a First Cause. This First
> Cause to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where God came from
> is not a satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might
> as well deny the existence of the millionth effect which, for the
> sake of argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit
> one cause as ever having existed, I am bound eventually by induction
> to arrive at the First Cause. We will explore the subject of the
> origin of life later in a more in-depth and scientific context.
> “But wait a minute,” says the evolutionist, “Isn’t evolution a
> science and creation just a religious belief?” If this common idea
> were true, why would so many highly qualified scientists today accept
> the direct creation of a functioning world (just as it says in
> Genesis, the first book of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) and reject
> evolution? In fact, the modern creation movement is a fast-growing
> minority.
> In the US alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are
> upwards of 10,000 professional scientists who believe in biblical
> creation. In 1993 in South Korea, for instance, the Korea Association
> of Creation Research already had a membership of over 1,000
> scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in
> some area of science, and including 100 full-ranking university
> professors. The Moscow Creation Science Fellowship was formed with 10
> members a short while ago. A year later it had escalated to 120
> holders of advanced science degrees.
> Most university professors have one earned doctorate; we know of
> members of the creation movement (e.g. A.E. Wilder-Smith) who have
> the rare distinction of three such doctorates. Historically, most
> scientific disciplines were founded by great scientists (Newton,
> Pasteur, Faraday, to name but a few) who were all creationists.
No-one has ever said that science and religion cannot co-exist. It is traditionally thought that science and religion contravene each other, as science tries to find a 'rational logic' behind the universe whereas traditional religions say 'God created it this way'. {Your} God {or another} may well have started off creation. Scientific facts, observations and reasonings go for the evolution theory because it fits the given information the best. It may well turn out in the end that God created us, and s/he created the evidence supporting evolution, or that s/he started off evolution 'in the beginning'. Or it could just be random chemicals coming together in this particular way that started it all. The only true way to know this would be to travel back to the point that this all happened and observe the happenings.
As for scientific reasoning, take Sir Isaac Newton as an example. He 'invented' the laws of motion. These were accepted by the scientific community and held to be correct for all instances, all time. Then Albert Einstein came along and said that, yes they are correct, but only under these specific circumstances {sub-light speed travel}. For anything outside these circumstances (and indeed as a generalisation of the laws of motion), we have relativity. i.e the laws of motion are a subset of relativity.
So evolution you claim is false. I say evolution fits all the given facts, until more facts are found. We then may extend evolution, or find it to be a subset of something else.
> Right: Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who holds three science
> doctorates
>
> Real science depends on measuring or watching something happen, and
> checking it by doing it again. Even if, for example, reptiles did
> change into birds millions of years ago, as evolutionists allege, the
> scientific method could never prove that as a fact, because it was
> not observed happening. If you could somehow turn a reptile into a
> bird today, even that wouldn’t prove it happened millions of years
> ago. Equally, you can’t insist that God should repeat the miraculous
> creation of many groups of birds and reptiles, programmed to
> reproduce after their kind, just so you can watch it.
See the eyeball experiment. Evolution has been proven through repeat experiments.
> Both are ideas held on faith; each belief system (evolution or
> creation) offers arguments and evidences to bolster that faith.
> Creationists maintain that theirs is a reasonable and logical belief
> system, backed up by the weight of evidence observable in the
> present.
> As we study evolution, let us first consider the morphological
> evidence for it. Firstly: Evidence from Classification - In his study
> of the various organisms in nature, the evolutionist finds some
> organisms to be very simple in structure and others more complicated.
> He finds it possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a
> fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex, or, as
> he would put it, from the ‘lower’ to the ‘highest’. Thus he places a
> single-celled animal like amoeba first, and next to it or ‘above’ it
> the multicellular hydra, and next to it amphioxus, and then a fish,
> an amphibian, a reptile and a lower mammal. Next to the lower mammal
> he places a lower ape. Next to that a higher ape, and lastly the most
> complex of all – Man. When he has finished arranging these creatures
> in that order, from the simpler to the more complicated, he turns
> round to the creationist and says: “See, here is a proof for the
> theory of evolution, showing how the complicated evolved out of the
> simpler ones!”
> This is a strange proof indeed! Such proofs are not wanting in any
> sphere of life, for simple and complicated things which lend
> themselves to such arrangements exist everywhere. By arranging his
> books on a shelf in a graded system, depending on the size or
> complexity of its contents, a student can also prove the ‘evolution’
> of his books. The reader may well see the absurdity of such an
> argument, for it assumes the very thing to be proved. Nevertheless it
> has deceived thousands of students in the past and is still deceiving
> thousands more who allow themselves to be carried away by sheer
> weight of ‘scientific authority’, instead of thinking for themselves
> clearly and logically.
Here you are taking books as an example. If you have, say at one end, a simple book on how to peel an apple, and at the other end a complex book on quantum mechanics, then yes you can say that evolution theory here is duff. Because it is. But the who in their right mind would try and evolve quantum out of an apple peeler? If, however, all books were the same subject, then you could order them simplest to most complex (ie book on addition through to book on Calculus), then you can show the 'evolution' of the subject matter through the ages.
Most of the scientific results of the past few hundred years can quite easily be mis-interpreted to give different results. In the above example, we are not evolving the book, we are evolving the subject matter. BIG difference.
> In his book A Critique of Evolution Theory the late well-known
> evolutionist T.H. Morgan of Columbia University admits that the proof
> from classification is in fact no real proof at all. On page 9 of the
> same book he says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed
> out to pupils of his who believe in evolution, they are resentful. We
> may boldly affirm that this proof is absurd; and the fact that
> organisms can be arranged in a certain order does not preclude the
> possibility of both the simple and the complex coming into existence
> simultaneously. The Bible says that all animal life was created in
> two days (Genesis 1:20-27). With God such things are possible.
Your note about God creating all lower and higher life forms at once could well be true. It is just a bit hard to understand then however that archeologists find remains and carbon date them, and we see that the higher life form lived more recently to the lower from which it allegedly evolved. If your point was true then we should have found they lived and died all at the same era in history, not in a continual timeline.
> Secondly: Proof from Comparative Anatomy – When a student of anatomy
> studies the structure of various animals in detail such as the bones,
> the muscles, the arteries, the veins, etc., it becomes apparent to
> him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them
> all. For example the anatomy of cat, dog, monkey and man resemble
> each other a great deal, taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle, and
> nerve for nerve, even to the smallest detail. It may also be stated
> that the resemblance between the animals themselves varies. Thus a
> cat resembles a dog more than a monkey, and a monkey resembles a man
> more than it resembles a dog. Based on this similarity of structure
> animals can be arranged in a fairly graded system. Again, comparing
> the anatomy of the wing of a bird, the paddle of a whale and the arm
> of a man it is observed that they are all constructed on the same
> general plan taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle and nerve for
> nerve. The evolutionist contends that such similarity of structure
> can be explained only on the basis of evolution, namely, that they
> all had a common ancestor.
> Similarity of structure is a scientific fact, for one can observe it
> on studying the anatomy of these animals. But the interpretation put
> on this similarity can reasonably be denied. For this similarity of
> structure can with equal reasonableness be used as an argument in
> favour of the doctrine of the special creation. For instance, if the
> various colleges of the city were compared, one is sure to find many
> points of similarity. Each may have an entrance, an office room, a
> Principal’s room, a library with books, class rooms with blackboards
> and seating arrangements, etc. This comparison may be extended even
> to minor details, to show that the resemblance between two Science
> Colleges is greater than the resemblance between an Arts College and
> a Science College. But from this similarity of structure it cannot be
> argued that the biggest (first grade) Science College building came
> out of a smaller (second grade) Science College building or that both
> Science and Arts College buildings evolved out of a common ancestor!
> For we know that they were all constructed separately. Yet they may
> well have been planned and constructed by one architect at one and
> the same time. Similarity in design in the case of colleges does not
> prove their evolution; neither does similarity of design prove
> evolution in the case of living organisms. To the believer in the
> Bible, similarity in plan of structure among living organisms merely
> establishes the fact of one great
> Architect, the Creator, who had in mind one great pattern which He
> used while making His natural species with such modifications as were
> necessary for their different conditions of life. He could as well
> have created them all on different patterns, the dog with four legs,
> the cat with five, the cow with six and the elephant with nineteen!
> He could have put the nostrils of the monkey behind its ears and
> given man two heads! But as they all have to live upon the same
> earth, breathing the same air and drinking the same kind of water, it
> was but reasonable that a wise Creator should construct them all on a
> similar pattern, allowing modifications wherever necessary. Thus
> similarity of structure, as revealed in comparative anatomy, may as
> well point to a common Creator as to any evolutionary process.
Entirely valid. They could all have been made from the same 'template' as it were, by the Creator in two days. This explains the similarities between spieces, as does evolution.
> Now let us consider the evidences for evolution from blood
> relationship. Firstly: Blood Precipitation Test – This test is
> supposed to support the theory of evolution by demonstrating ‘blood
> relationship’ that exists between man and the lower animals. George
> Nuttal of Cambridge, during his investigations which led to the
> discovery of vaccination, came across a by-product known as the
> anti-human serum. Human blood added to this liquid forms a thick
> white precipitate; with the blood of a bird there is no reaction, but
> the blood of mammals like lemurs, monkeys and chimpanzees yields
> varying degrees of precipitate, slightest in the case of lemurs and
> heaviest in that of chimpanzee. This similarity in the structure of
> the blood of man and ape is supposed to prove their common ancestry.
> Now, it is true that some similarity exists between the blood of
> mammals, which may even admit of their being arranged in a graded
> system. But this chemical similarity cannot prove evolution. Pursuing
> the same logic we might conclude that the pen knife, the bread knife
> and the sword have evolved from a common ancestor! For there is a
> similarity in the chemical make-up of these articles, and they can be
> arranged in a graded system according to the degree of hardness of
> each. However, further research along the same lines has show that
> the tiger and the whale are close of kin as are also the parrot and
> the ostrich. But such inconvenient facts are ignored by the
> evolutionist.
What is so remarkable about this? Both tiger and whale are air breathing mammals. Both parrot and ostrich are egg laying birds.
> Blood analysis has revealed other interesting facts as shown by B.C.
> Nelson. The specific gravity of human blood is 1059; of the pig and
> the hare 1060; of the frog 1055-56; of the snake 1055, and the
> monkey’s 1054.9. From this table we can see that the frog and the
> snake are closer to man that the monkey, while our nearest relation
> is the pig!
> It may look somewhat strange to base our relationship with the pig
> on flimsy evidence such as the similarity in the specific gravity of
> the blood. Yet the suggestion of a piggian ancestry was the theme for
> a University extension lecture in India a few years ago by a learned
> professor of Zoology holding a Ph.D. degree of the University of
> London. Of course he had many other facts of similarity to the
> support his thesis that we have closer ties with the Pig than with
> the Monkey or the Ape!
> But this is not all. If the blood test be a criterion of common
> ancestry, why not the milk test too? And chemical analysis shows that
> the animal which stands nearest to man, in this respect, is neither
> the monkey nor the pig but – the DONKEY!
> Some have even found support for this ancestry in the traditional
> customs of some primitive peoples. For among the tribal people in
> Asia there is still the practice of feeding infants when they are
> born with donkey’s milk instead of human milk. To what ridiculous
> conclusions do evolutionists lead us at times!
> Secondly: Proof from Geographical Distribution – The proof from blood
> precipitation test and the proof from geographical distribution have
> not been presented by evolutionists in recent years. However, they do
> find a place in some text books of zoology, and for that reason they
> are considered in this series.
> The proof from geographical distribution essentially consists in
> setting up a ridiculous idea of special creation, not warranted by
> the Bible and knocking it down again by ridicule. And because such an
> idea of special creation is unthinkable, evolutionary interpretation
> for the present distribution of animals and plants presumably is
> correct. Charles Darwin noted the similarity between the fauna of the
> Galapagos Islands (500 miles off the west coast of South America) and
> those of the main continent, and argued that such similarity was
> inexplicable on the basis of special creation (i.e. the idea that
> each species was created separately in its particular locality). This
> interpretation of special creation is not implied in the Scriptures.
> For the Bible not only permits variation within the ‘kind’ created
> but also clearly indicates that all land animals migrated from a
> single spot after the Genesis flood. Evolutionists argue that our
> finding marsupial mammals only in Australia is due to the fact that
> the continent got separated from other parts of the world before the
> other mammals evolved.
Not 'before the other mammals evolved', but 'so far back in time that the mammals split early on in the tree-diagram of mammals'
> To this Duperett’s answer seems to be the
> right explanation. According to him the fauna of Australia and
> Tasmania is not an indigenous survival from the Mesozoic era but come
> there by immigration at a recent epoch (Transformations of Animal
> World, p. 306). This agrees with the Scriptural account. However, on
> the question of distribution evolutionists themselves are sharply
> divided, and in the current debate this is not usually presented as
> evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution.
> “But what about the fossils,” asks the evolutionist, “don’t they show
> evolution?” Darwin stated, quite correctly, that if his theory was
> true, there should be very large numbers of ‘in-between types’ found
> as fossils. If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned
> into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils
> showing these stages – part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale,
> part-feather?
> Darwin said that the absence of such intermediates was the ‘most
> obvious and serious objection’ against his theory. 120 years later,
> Dr. David Raup, the head of one of the great museums in America, said
> that the situation concerning missing links ‘hasn’t changed much’ and
> that ‘we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we
> had in Darwin’s time’.
> So what do we have? Evolution expects millions of in-between forms.
> Some evolutionists claim there are some – maybe a handful of such
> in-between fossil types. Other leading experts say there are none.
Ahh, the 'missing link' again. All I can say to this is yes, there are missing links. But consider the timescale, we are talking about a billion years here. Can you fathom just how long this actually is? Billion. Say it. Its said and done in a second. Think of a year, of what happens to the world in a year. Millions live and die. You get a bit older. Think about living the whole of your life. I will be kind and grant you one hundred years. My, look how the world has changed in those hundred years. Look back to when you were young, and look at you now, old and frail, your kids kids running about outside. Now your kids kids grow up, become old. 200 years have passed. The world has changed beyond all recognition. In 200 years. Extend to 500, then 1000 years. What is it like now? Then a thousand thousand years. A thousand thousand thousand years. How many fossils do you think have survived this amount of time? If you think all of them, well, we wouldn't be able to move for dead animals, fossils and the like. And you expect me to dig up all the fossils to show one species evolutionary trail. Do the math, this is tending towards the impossible. If there is one thing in this world that is pure, it is mathematics. And maths says it is very near damn impossible to collect all the missing links. Not impossible, but so damn near you might as well try and win the national lottery every day of your life.
I will pause here for a sanity check, and also to go actually do some work :)
As a breather from your huge post, and in answer to thermodynamics:
(Please note I didnt study Thermodynamics during my maths degree, but have been near it with loads of cool wave equations and so forth)
2nd rule of thermodynamics:
Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered.
Eg cold ice cube in a hot room., heat travels to the ice cube until both ice cube and room share same temperature. I have done the math on this. It is complicated yet so cool, especially modelling it on a pc.
Definition of entropy:
Entropy just measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes – as a function of temperature. (Often, it’s a simple equation, Entropy change = “energy dispersed”/ T.)
You said:
"As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost"
I do quite fail to see the relationship between this and the above definition. Please could someone explain this better (without trolling please!).
(Please note I didnt study Thermodynamics during my maths degree, but have been near it with loads of cool wave equations and so forth)
2nd rule of thermodynamics:
Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered.
Eg cold ice cube in a hot room., heat travels to the ice cube until both ice cube and room share same temperature. I have done the math on this. It is complicated yet so cool, especially modelling it on a pc.
Definition of entropy:
Entropy just measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes – as a function of temperature. (Often, it’s a simple equation, Entropy change = “energy dispersed”/ T.)
You said:
"As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost"
I do quite fail to see the relationship between this and the above definition. Please could someone explain this better (without trolling please!).
Page: