Replies

[[How do you plan on convincing the scientists, and the people who write the science text books based on their work of that? ]]

Convince people that ignore biological, mathematical, chemical, and natural laws that macroevolution is impossible? Good quesiton- just how do you convince people like that? People desperate to deny there is a God and that we are sinners in need of salvation? While there may be soem who are indeed Christians- TRUE Christians, who have been deceived by hte lie of macroevolution, and who have been deceived to put hteir trust in man’s word about past events for which they have no evidence to back it up, and for which they MUST go WAY BEYOND the evidence in order to adhere to the religion of Darwin, and hwo may beleive ‘God just got thigns started’, the majority of Macroevolutionsits are quite simply running from that inner voice that is tryign to lead them to salvation- so ‘convincing htem’ will be quite a task- but really, in the end, they will be responsible for hteir own soul’s condition, and hte truth will still stand quite nicely on it’s own despite these people’s insistance that God didn’t create everything. The actual evidence doesn’t need a ‘majority voice’, or a ‘consensus’ in order to be truth. truth is truth, and no amount of stubborn insistance contrary to hte truth will undermine hte actual truth. Whether devote congregationalists of Darwinism are ‘convinced’ or not matters not.

[[Why does creationism need to exist?]]

[[If yoi interpret the Bible one way, but a veritable mountain of real-world observation says the opposite, then maybe the problem ain’t with science. ]]

[[The by your account the people who say that the objective of the creationists is simply to make science conform to their theology are right.]]

—Really? Because:

The Natural Limits to Biological Change
Neo-Darwinism Under Attack
Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D.

“One of the most significant questions in the origins debate concerns the nature of biological change. Can organisms change into an infinite array of creatures? Or are there genetically imposed limits to the amount of change which can take place? There are two major theories of evolutionary change: neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. As creationists, Lane Lester and I proposed in 1984 that indeed there are limits to change in our book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change. Theoretically, it may seem difficult to propose that immense variety may occur within a group of organisms yet this variety is constrained within certain genetically induced limits. It may seem contradictory even. But in the intervening ten years, my confidence in the proposal has only strengthened, and my confidence in any evolutionary mechanism to accomplish any significant adaptational change has waned considerably.

The arguments against neo-Darwinism center around four topics: mutation, natural selection, population genetics, and paleontology. Our major objection to the role of mutations in evolutionary change is the clear lack of data to indicate that mutations really accomplish anything new. While some weird-looking fruit flies have been created in the laboratory, they are still fruit flies. Bacteria are still bacteria. We quoted from Pierre-Paul Grasse’, the great French evolutionist. When commenting on the mutations of bacteria he said:

What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

A mechanism for the creation of new genetic material is also sadly inadequate. Sometimes, an extra copy of a gene arises due to a DNA duplication error. Evolutionists suggest that this extra gene can accumulate mutations and eventually code for a new gene with a different function. In reality, however, this fails to explain how an old gene takes on a new function and new regulation pathways by the introduction of genetic mistakes into the gene and the regulatory apparatus.

Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one. The famous example of peppered moths teaches us how a species survives in a changing environment by possessing two varieties adapted to different conditions. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria only instructed us in the ingenious mechanisms of different bacteria to share the already existing genes for antibiotic resistance among themselves.

Decades of research in the science of population genetics has not helped the neo-Darwinist position. The data from protein and gene variation shed only a dim light on the major problem of evolution— the appearance of novel adaptations. The major significance of population genetics has been helping to understand how an organism responds to minor environmental fluctuations. And even this can be clouded in fundamental differences in theory.

First, virtually all taxonomic levels, even species appear abruptly in the fossil record. This, it will be remembered, is one of the sharper criticisms of neo-Darwinism, and one of the two cornerstones of punctuated equilibrium. It is relevant not only that the various levels of taxa appear abruptly but also that alongside the higher taxonomic levels there are unique adaptations. This is the key. Unique and highly specialized adaptations usually, if not always, appear fully formed in the fossil record. The origin of the different types of invertebrate animals such as the sponges, mollusks, echinoderms like the starfish, arthropods like crustaceans, and others all appear suddenly, without ancestors, in the Cambrian period.”

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/natlim.html