Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[gore3000]

Evidence Disproving Evolution

The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.

Religion and Science:

Access Research Network Discovery Institute -- Origins -- Creation Science -- Creation/Evolution Sites -- Creation & Evolution Links from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club -- True Origins -- Answers in Genesis -- Faith Facts -- Center for Renewal of Science and Culture -- Center for Scientific Creation -- Creation Research Society -- Biblical Creation Society -- Christian Apologetics -- Institute for Creation Research

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution." From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Intelligent Design:
Darwin's Mistake by Stu Pullen -- Rebuttals of Criticisms of Darwin's Black Box -- Dembski - Another Way to Detect Design -- Behe, Michael J. - ARN Authors Page -- Leadership U. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins -- Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes -- Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max -- Intelligent Design Research Community -- Intelligent Design Theory Resources -- Intelligent Design. The bridge between science and theology. (William Dembski). -- Evolution vs Creation (Intelligent Design) WorldView -- Detailed defense of "Icons" by Wells -- Dembski on Intelligent Design -- Dembski: No Free Lunch -- Behe's Book -- A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael -- Intelligent Design Articles -- Phillip Johnson's Page -- Ohio Science Standards - IDN	A Moment in History... That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is." Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?" From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall

Biology Disproving Evolution
Alternative Splicing -- Scientists snap first 3-D pictures of the "heart" of the transcription machine -- Molecular Biology Book -- Cell Interactions in Development -- Oldest Living Plant -- Fruit Flies Speak Up -- The Nature of Nurture: How the environment shapes our genes -- Nanobes (Nanobacteria) are crystals -- Regulation of the Cell Cycle 2001 Nobel Prize -- Amniota - Problems with the Philogeny of -- Basic Principles of Genetics Mendel's Genetics -- Photosynthesis -- Population Variability and Evolutionary Genetics -- Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA -- Genetics Glossary AB -- Genomics and Its Impact on Medicine and Society 2001 Primer -- The molecular clock -- Cell Signaling: The Inside Story on MAP Kinases -- Protein Synthesis -- Watching genes at work -- Cell snapshot spots cancer -- Development protein atracts and then repels muscle tissue -- Evolution of the Genomes of Mammals and Birds -- Gene Silencing - Study shows plants inherit traits from more than gene sequence alone -- Gene silencing - Environmental Stress reactions -- Bio-Tech Info - Gene Silencing Articles -- Advances In "Micro" RNA Exploring Process Of Life -- Monkeys and Men - gene expression -- Chimps, Humans and Retroviruses -- Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps -- Pros and Cons of Inbreeding -- Inbreeding and desth of species -No Need to Isolate Genetics -- How Organisms Protect Themselves Against Transposons -- Uses of transposons -- Cell Suicide -- Protein Transforms Sedentary Muscles Into Exercised Muscles, Researchers Report -- Gene insertion in Transgenic Animals -- "50,000 Genes, and We Know Them All (Almost)"	While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility. Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves. David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

Mutations:
A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution -- Evolutionist View of Evolutionary Biology -- Creation, Selection, And Variation -- Population Genetics, Haldane's Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution -- Haldane Rebuttal -- Point_Mutations -- Inbreeding and Population Genetics -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology -- Neutral Mutations -- Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution -- Mutations - organisms fixes them itself -- Mutations	Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Junk DNA:
The Human Genome Project -- Junk DNA in man and mouse -- Junk DNA - Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function -- JUNK dna and transpositions -- Junk DNA Tips Off Tumor Comeback -- Transgenics, Junk DNA, Evolution and Risks: Reading Through Rows	Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

Abiogenesis:
RNA World: A Critique -- Evolution and the Origin of Life -- Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life - Part II -- The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Message Theory/Remine -- Bruce Lipton, Insight Into Cellular Consciousness	There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

Darwin and His Theory:
Charles Darwin - The Truth -- Darwin's Racism -- Darwi n's Family -- Malthus and evolutionists -- Darwin's Environment -- Darwin, Racism, Evil -- Ascent of Racism -- Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test -- Darwin's finches Evolution in real time -- Effects of the 1998 El Niño on Darwins finches on Daphne -- Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty -- Homology A Concept in Crisis. Origins & Design 182. Wells, Jonathan -- Darwin's Creation Myth -- David Berlinsky 'The Deniable Darwin	Evolutionists try to paint Darwin as a quiet scientist working hard on writing his theory. However, this is a totally false statement. Yes, he was a recluse. However, he was neither a scintist not a very nice person as the following quote shows: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. From: Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

Evolutionist Censorship:
Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com -- Science and Fairness -- Duane Gish Responds to Joyce Arthur's Critique -- Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? -- Censorship of Information on Origins -- Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)	Evolutionists almost since the start have tried to silence opponents. While they constantly claim to be scientists, it seems that instead of following the principles of science - questioning, discussion, and challenging of existing theories, they follow the principles of ideology - silencing and destroying opponents.

Species Disproving Evolution:

Morphology of the Archaea -- Humans Are Three Percent Puffer Fish -- JGI Fugu v2.0 Home -- Cyanobacteria not changed in 4 billion years -- Platypus -- Platypus Web Sites -- Eosimias ankle bone proves human descent! -- euglena -- Textbook Fraud: Hyracotherium dawn horse eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus -- - On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - -- Fruit Flies Disprove Darwin -- Hymenopimecis Wasp: Parasite's web of death -- Haploid False Spider Mites -- Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang -- Cambrian Explosion: Origin of the Phyla -- Kangaroo and platypus not related

Top: Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus Bottom: Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species

Various Topics:
A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' -- Blind Atheist -- Freeper Views on Origins -- Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs -- Creation/Evolution Debate -- Homology -- 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub> -- Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 -- Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (Statement on Evolution - 1996) -- Evolution Shams -- A Critique of PBS's Evolution -- Evolution of a Creationist -- Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics -- God, Humanity and the Cosmos Book Section Evolutionary Biology and Theology -- The Revolution Against Evolution -- Sexual Reproduction A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists -- Splifford FAQ (How talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution really work -- Mathematics vs Evolution -- Evolution vs Logic -- Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change -- Evolution as Anti-Science -- Critique of Gould -- Radiocarbon dating things which should not radiocarbon date... -- Evolution or Christianity -- Funding for Evolution -- Scientists find biological reality behind religious experience [Free Republic] -- Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery -- The healing power of prayer. -- There is power in prayer [Free Republic] -- Micro vs Macroevolution -- Science Design Kit -- 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism -- The Evolution of Truth -- Fossils and dating -- - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -- Talk Origins - FAQ or Fiction? -- McCluskey, E. S. --- Which Vertebrates Make Vitamin C? -- Vitamin c Pseudogene -- Snapshots of God -- Critics of Evolution - Book Reviews	While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either. With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species. The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes. With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.

[Heartlander]

Nice post!
Bookmarked…

[gore3000]

That's a pretty vague quote to "prove" he wasn't an evolutionist, isn't it?

Nope. Materialists in no way believe in miracles and he clearly states that life is a miracle in that quote.

Evolutionists when presented with evidence showing that scientists do not believe in their garbage always make excuses that the people did not mean it, have said otherwise at some time or other, the quote is old or numerous other nonsense excuses. The question they never answer though is why did these people make these statements if they did not mean them? Are they some kind of idiots just blaberring away nonsense? They even claim that the quote on eugenics by Darwin is 'not what he meant' when clearly the whole concept of evolutionary theory rests on getting rid of the laggards as the quote on the top of the article shows. Indeed to evolutionists, getting rid of the 'less viable' is the way of progress to bigger and better things.

Therefore this constant attack on quotes is just a lame defense by evolutionists of their ideology. They cannot contemplate that any honest, reasonable person can disagree with their theory. They cannot countenance that anyone can say that the emperor of evolution has no clothes so they must paint all who say it as idiots or nutcases. The problem they have is that it is not just idiots or nutcases that disagree with evolution, reasonable, smart people disagree with it.

The large amount of evidence presented in the article above shows quite well that there is much scientific reason to reject evolution. That evolutionists do not dare discuss the evidence presented in the article above shows that the evidence presented against evolution is fact and not refutable.

[Junior]

Not all evolutionists are materialists, regardless what your pastor told you. Neither are all miracles divine. The word "miracle" is often used to describe otherwise mundane things (i.e., the miracle of birth) without recourse to the divine. At least that's how it is in the real world. Your mileage may vary.

[gore3000]

But if species were designed at random by the creator, where are the 3 billion year-old human fossils? Where are the flying primates? Where are the underwater ant colonies? Where are the ground dwelling fish?

They were not designed at random, they were designed with a purpose. He made species fit to live in their environment. He made them able to live through and survive different and varied threats to it. Nevertheless, there are many species which while perfectly fit for their environment exhibit features which in no way they could have inherited through evolutionary means. I show those creatures which I am sure could not have developed through evolutionary means in the article above and give links showing why they are so unique. I am sure there are many more of which I do not know about.

[AndrewC]

Not really. As long as a theory is testable and falsifiable it has a shot. What have you got?

That bones alone don't make a relationship. What happened to the mesonychus characteristics of the Pakicetus? How do you explain the whale-hippo closeness with in this diagram? How does the ambolucetus come from the Pakicetus if this is the diagram of the relationship?

Note this image comes from Nature and is produced by Thewissen. --- source of the above image.

[PatrickHenry]

The word circle in Hebrew, khug, is best translated in terms of sphericity or roundness.

I went to this site:
http://www.breslov.com/ref/Isaiah40.htm
which has the bible in Hebrew and English. The English translation of Isaiah 40:22 is this:

It is He that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;

The site has a Hebrew-Engish dictionary. "Circle" in English gives this in Hebrew: gwx. Transliterated (whatever that means) it's Chuwg, which is what you gave. The definition (for both, presumably) is given as: 1. circle, circuit, compass; 2. (BDB) vault (of the heavens)

The same word is in Proverbs 8:27. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth.

And in Job 22:14. Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.

I am no bible scholar (obviously) but I see no hint of "sphericity" in any of these uses of the term.

[AndrewC]

As for the circle reference in Isaiah (which I believe is a unique anomaly in scripture), it was not impossible for ancients to observe that the earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse was in the shape of a circle. Thus it was quite possible for ancients to think of the earth as disk-shaped.

Yee-Haa! PatrickHenry the Biblical scholar. What a twist to keep your lies. A four cornered disk now. Your reading of the Holy Scriptures is unique to say the least.

[Junior]

I never said bones alone make a relationship; indeed, bones are simply another clue to the relationships between organisms.

[gore3000]

I kept trying to say that this argument seems to keep cycling because Creationist/ID'ers want to talk about theology, whereas evos want to talk about science, which in my mind is a lower level knowledge.

What threads have you been reading? The article above is about scientific facts and the evolutionists only want to talk about religion and bash Christianity. Religious people are trying to meet the evolutionists on their own field and the evolutionists refuse to defend their side and instead attack either their opponents religion or their opponents themselves. If evolution were science, they could easily meet the attack on their theory on scientific grounds. They cannot.

By opting out of the scientific process,

Who is opting out of the scientific process? Are you making the ridiculous and easily refutable claim that all scientists are atheists? Discuss the scientific questions presented against evolution instead of bashing your opponents. Again if evolution is science - defend the science of evolution.

[AndrewC]

Dyslexic today.

with in=within

ambolucetus=(some creature developed for Darwininian pleasure) or ambulocetus -- take your choice

[AndrewC]

I never said bones alone make a relationship; indeed, bones are simply another clue to the relationships between organisms.

No, but their imagined relationships are continually touted as prima facie evidence for Darwinian evolution. So how do you answer the questions I posed?

[Agamemnon]

While you on the other hand must think the polar shift happens instantaneously without any variance of the field strength?

It seems that your tendency toward personal projection points inescapeably to the inherent collapse in your arguments. While radical if not instantaneous polar shift has certainly been speculated, it has not been formally observed, nor have we come to expect that our compasses point to "S" one week and to "N" the next.

Decay in the Earth's magnetic moment has been and is measured and observed. For your point to have any testable merit you would have to be able to humanly witness a radical polar shift. Until then, your position is all speculation and is based in mere theoretical supposition. But then again you are the one still trying to get us all to imagine the Earth orbiting Saturn.

You are welcomed to speculate about whether the magnetic moment of the Earth has undergone realignment, it is, however, an incontrovertable fact that your imagination (if not image of yourself as an accomplished scientific thinker) is in need of some serious re-alignment.

I on the other hand will continue with an observed and a recordable phenomenon.

[Junior]

Bones are strong evidence that evolution has occured. How do you explain the fossil record? Are the creatures therein predecessors to modern creatures, or were they (and modern critters) created in situ? As for your question, I don't know all that much about whale evolution; seems to me VadeRetro and you have that corner pretty much to y'all's selves.

[gore3000]

I don't see anything non-Darwinian here.

Let me explain it to you then.

The discovery that human-specific retroviruses emerged at the same time other researchers believe humans and chimps diverged was startling.

...

They found that at least 16 percent of those elements had undergone rearrangements that resulted in large-scale "deletions, duplications, and chromosome reshuffling during the evolution of the human genome."

This is a very big change, something out of nothing, something which changed humans a great deal. It is a large jump totally unexplainable by evolution. These elements clearly did not act jointly and at random to create a new more advanced species. It also disproves the 2% nonsense evolutionists speak about as does the article on 'Monkeys and Men - Gene expression' which shows that the brains of men are much more powerful than those of monkeys by the simple expedient of expressing the genes affecting the brain more than on monkeys. It is hard to believe that such a simple and at the same time such a helpful change would have 'just happened' with men. Certainly such a simple change would have been helpful to almost any species yet it never occurred before. So yes, humans are special.

I've read some of gore3000's links, but I don't see anything non-Darwinian there.

If you have any questions why I consider any of them anti-Darwinian, just ask.

[AndrewC]

Are the creatures therein predecessors to modern creatures, or were they (and modern critters) created in situ?

Which ones(fossils) and to what(modern critters)?

As to whale evolution, you don't need to know anything except read a chart. You can see that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are on a fork. Thus one cannot lead to the other(in a simple tree diagram). Also notice that the whales(Paki and Ambulo) are outside of the Artiodactyls, with the Hippos deeply "buried" in the tree. DNA evidence says they are kissing cousins. Now you must understand that this tree was produced from the bone evidence even after including the artiodactyl ankle bone. The bones are thus still at odds with the DNA evidence. The bone casters still trust their computer models and subjective character measuring over DNA evidence. Some scientists.

[scripter]

Transliterated (whatever that means)

For the most part it means letter for letter translation. If you don't know what a word means you can translate each letter then look up the transliterated word in a Hebrew dictionary.

I'll take a look at this thread later.

[gore3000]

We also need to look at how computers and networks evolve. -Shapiro Quote-

Computer's and networks do not 'evolve' by themselves, they are intelligently designed. Like all things done by intelligent beings they build upon what has been previously found to work. No one reinvents the wheel, no one reinvents binary computing. People build upon these previous systems and discoveries. So much so that the width of our present roads was originally defined by the width of road necessary to carry a Roman chariot. This intelligence at work, not some mystical 'evolution' advancing our scientific and practical knowledge. In fact, when claiming that such things have evolved, the evolutionists are really showing the religious, not scientific nature of their theory.

[gore3000]

As long as a theory is testable and falsifiable it has a shot. What have you got?

The truth. That is why the evolutionists do not wish to discuss the science of evolution and instead keep repeating the mantra that evolution is science. If you cannot defend your theory scientifically, it is not science.

[Junior]

The truth.

Ah... What is the truth? Don't beat around the bush, don't obfuscate. Lay your cards on the table. How do you explain the fossil record (attacking the evolutionist view of the fossil record does not constitute an explanation)? How do you explain the DNA evidence (once more, attacking evolution is not an option here)? Do you have anything other than a plaintive wailing that evolution just cannot be true because you can't possibly ever come to accept it?

[Heartlander]

Patrick,
I do appreciate the fact that you took time to research instead of making a sarcastic remark that is easy for some to do when debating scripture. When I initially said, “I apologize for stepping into this…” it was due to this fact. I was skeptical of scripture at one time so I cannot fault you or anyone (in fact I understand) I know I cannot ‘make’ you believe anything about anything.

I brought up the star of Bethlehem because I thought it might interest you in strict scientific terms. I say this because even if someone thinks the three wise men are a myth, something occurred in the heavens coinciding with the birth of Christ and His death.

Anyway, I hope you due a ‘search’ on this as well.