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.

[f.Christian]

Trying to orbit science around darwin...

is like trying to put the sun in orbit around the moon---

HACKWARDS!

Darwin is an assteroid----klunker....

no fuel---lotta assh/slag!

Halebopps!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Or this from the same Dr. Janes Shapiro at the Marshall Symposium in 1998:

We also need to look at how computers and networks evolve. What new hypotheses about the evolutionary process, which after all underlies all of biology, can we formulate? In the information world there are survivals and extinctions. We read about these more on the front page and the economics page than on the science page, but these are in fact evolutionary processes occurring in real time.

We can see in computer systems the appearance and interaction of distinct genera - for example, the PC, the Macintosh, and the Unix machines are distinct genera. And there are even distinct species, so within the PC genus we have IBM and Dell and Compaq and Hewlett-Packard and so forth. On the network, we see viruses appearing, and we also see defensive immune systems evolving to recognize and neutralize or eliminate these viruses. Studying these processes may in fact tell us a lot about how biological systems have evolved.

The newest Internet development, of course, is the introduction of autonomous agents, such as applets and cookies. It will be very interesting to see what happens to these as they circulate around. Do they become parasites? Do they become new organisms? Do they create problems or open up opportunities, and do they lead to further diversification?

Seems evolutionary to me. But we've been doing this in our manufacturing areas for the last 20 years. What is non-scientific about it (or non-Darwinian as you call it)?

[f.Christian]

Technology/science/computers proves creation---intelligent DESIGN/Creator.

How about a microsoft w/o a Bill Gates---CHAOS(mutation/selection)!

[AndrewC]

What is non-scientific about it (or non-Darwinian as you call it)?

Why should I posit an answer? Your reply exquisitely demonstrates my exact point in my post 433

You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science.

[Agamemnon]

At that time it was not asinine, as it was widely assumed the Sun burned like coal. Now we know of fusion.

And of course, the size of the Sun has not been been a topic with widely varying answers at least since shortly after it was accepted that the Earth went around it.

What's next in your fantasy universe, a flat Earth?

Surely you are not trying to imply that fusion and the resultant energy release which proceedes from it is somehow afunction of matter spotaneously generating itself without expense! Making Helium from of Hydrogen expends and releases frictional and photon energy, it does not create matter. Is this what forms the basis of your "open system" position? If so, you may wish to refresh your memory with regard to the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, and mass-balance.

The heat which warms our planet and proceedes from the sun should be evidence enough to the junior physicist that energy is expended from a finite energy producing source. The sun does not recapture energy lost to entropy.

Whether one generates heat from burning methane or from a fusion reaction, both systems deplete their inherent mass as energy is released to entropy. As was pointed out to you in the orignal post, the rate of solar burn is able to be measured. The Sun is depleting is resources at a measure-able rate.

By definition the Sun is losing its mass and with it, its size at a measureable rate, and if the rate observed today is the same as the rate that has been, the Earth would be uninhabitable at a fixed point in the past due to the size of solar mass as yet unconsumed. Fusion does not change classical principles of mass-balance. You, like balrog666 might want to write to Starfleet Academy and ask for a refund.

Where "flat Earth" history is concerned, those who promoted it (e.g., Lactantius c. 245-325 A.D. and Cosmas Indicopleustes in the 6th century) were identified as heretics by early Church fathers, and their writings were shelved and decried. Your knowledge of the intellectual history of the church ignores Judeo-Christian scripturual references to the round Earth (Isaiah 40:22), and evidently stretches only so far back as to 18th-19th century myths promoted by novelists like Washington Irving.

It is you whose pretense to knowledge alludes to "history" as imagined in a novelist's "fantasy," not I.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science.

I believe that you were the one that implied that anything non-Darwinian was not science. All I meant was that I see nothing unscientific or non-Darwinian in the two quotes. Like I said, we've been looking at this in my workplace for two decades. It's old news.

(I caught your Darwininian pun by the way. Very clever.)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

How about a microsoft w/o a Bill Gates---CHAOS(mutation/selection)!

I think you're baiting me. No amount of computer code compares to God's Creation. But I know, that you know, that you already know this.

[Junior]

You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science.

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

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern age

[f.Christian]

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made/REDACTED these absolutes subordinate--relative--'non-existant' and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY/lies/bias...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!!

[f.Christian]

Evolution--atheism--catholicism is CRAZY!

You think science/Creation is compatable to a materialistc cult/lie/heresy?

[f.Christian]

Junior says...

"Dude, most of the world are evolutionists. Only a small, vocal minority of American Protestant Fundamentalists could be considered "creationists" by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, even the Pope doesn't have a beef with evolution."


132 posted on 10/11/02 2:15 PM Pacific by Junior


To: PatrickHenry

PH says

"I know you have doubts. We all have doubts. Yet, the Pope said this, and I think he's accepting the theory of biological evolution"

BB says...

"PH, believe this if you like; but to do so is to ignore who the Pope is. His greatest responsibility on earth as the Vicar of Christ is to preserve and transmit the deposit of the faith, which is biblically based. For him to argue against special creation would mean he'd be required to excommunicate himself." :^)


749 posted on 10/10/02 12:03 PM Pacific by betty boop

[Agamemnon]

There was no reason. And of course it didn't. If you set up your own straw man, in this case, an unreasonably unlikely evolutionary sequence, you will find it easy to knock down. Proving nothing.

Touche, and thank you. Your statement just proved my point, even as it affirmed my original premise! Glad you agree. And you know what, Cytochrome C is only one of millions of specialized proteins that makes your existence, nay -- even your ability to post on FR -- fundamentally possible.

You were the one making the probabilities arguments in the first place. I welcome them, particularly where premises of evolution abut statistical impossibility. Here and in this instance, you have both acquitted yourself and contradicted yourself in the same breath! Quite a contorted intellectual feat for an evolutionist, I must say.

What a shame that by extention you still cling to such a random, purposeless view to your own living, breathing, aerobic existence.

[f.Christian]

Here's the breakdown---approximations...

45% creationists/science(sane/normal)...

45% creation and evolutioned(confused/schizoids)...

10% hard core atheists/materialists---EVOLUTION only whacks!

[Agamemnon]

Changing the playing field? How like a gore3k. Why not just suggest the Earth was in orbit around Saturn?

If you can't distinguish the difference between discussions pertaining to the strength of the magnetic moment of a solar-orbiting body from that of polar shifts in the moment itself, then Captain Kirk has evidently done you a severe academic dis-service.

While I never guessed that adherants to evolutionary dogma would become quite so philosophically unglued even as their arguments continually erode from beneath them, I'll happily leave it to your own intellectual void to ponder the Earth orbiting Saturn.

[PatrickHenry]

... scripturual references to the round Earth (Isaiah 40:22) ...

I think your use of the plural (in "references") is incorrect. Isaiah 40:22 is the only passage I know of where the earth is described as a circle (not a "sphere"). Everywhere else, there are references to the earth's four corners, the ends of the earth, the pillars supporting the earth, and several statements that the earth is unmoveable. The New Testament states (twice) that from a high mountain one can see all the nations of the earth at one time.

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. Only a sea-faring people (like the Greeks) could also observe vanishing ship masts on the horizon and conclude that the earth was a sphere.

[f.Christian]

#3!

[balrog666]

If you can't distinguish the difference between discussions pertaining to the strength of the magnetic moment of a solar-orbiting body from that of polar shifts in the moment itself

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

Sure, buddy, sure.

[AndrewC]

I believe that you were the one that implied that anything non-Darwinian was not science.

Let us go over this carefully

You made this general statement about believers---By opting out of the scientific process, people of faith will be unemployable in many areas of science and be isolated from a decision making role.

You can see how I understood what you were saying in my reply ---Well, there is your problem. You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science. Read Dr. James Shapiro, and/or you might actually read some of the links that Gore3000 has provided. Such as this one

You can see I interpret your general statement against believers as coming about due to their rejection of Darwinian concepts not their rejection of science. It would be you that equates the two.

Each and every reponse from you after that included ---I don't see anything non-Darwinian here.

In his commentary "The Third Way", Shapiro most definitely addressed concerns about Darwinian beliefs and demeanor in the debate. I repeat my statement. I believe that you consider any concern about or attack on Darwinian concepts as non-science.

[Heartlander]

I apologize for stepping into this – but…

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

But if you are implying that the authors of the Bible made stuff up as they went along based upon new scientific discoveries – explain the Star of Bethlehem…
It appears a group of ancient scientists made an important discovery.