Evolution Contradictions

[Insight]

Recently, I received an email which said, "You don’t honestly believe that preposterous creation story do you???" This is my reply.

Do you believe that preposterous evolution story where a series of random changes resulted in incredibly complex and interdependent ecosystems? It sure doesn't work that way in my garage! It quickly becomes cluttered and unusable unless I regularly clean and organize it. Random changes almost always result in disorder and disintegration. There are rare instances where random events produce order, such as in crystal formation, but DNA is far more complex than crystals and the information stored by DNA is far more complex than DNA. Can you believe that the complexities of life are the result of random mutations, especially when at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful?

Evolution claims that natural selection is the "organizer" that keeps the beneficial mutations and eliminates the harmful. But, how would natural selection recognize a beneficial mutation when a series of mutations are required to produce a beneficial change? For example, evolution teaches that bones from reptiles' jaws evolved into the bones in mammals' middle ears. These bones magnify sound so natural selection would select mammalian ears when they were fully functional, but what about the generations while these bones were evolving? How would reptiles chew when their jawbones were dislocating and migrating toward the ear? How would early mammals hear before the bones in their middle ears were properly connected? Natural selection most likely would have eliminated the transitional forms long before they had developed enough to have a hearing advantage. Likewise, a reptile whose front legs were evolving into wings would be crippled and easy prey until the wings were fully functional. The Archaeopteryx is often given as an example of a transitional form between flying reptiles and birds but it isn’t. Even though it had teeth and a tail like a reptile, this bird had fully formed feathers which are much more complex than frayed scales. There are no known fossils of transitional forms showing how new limbs or organs evolved. Evolutionists used to list several vestigial organs in humans including the appendix and hypothalamus, which were thought to be useless organs left over from earlier stages of human evolution. This list disappeared as important functions were discovered for each organ on the list. The fossil record and currently living animals do not provide any examples of evolving organs or half-formed limbs.

Another way that the fossil record contradicts evolution is that there are many instances where fossils are out of order in the layers of rock. It is possible to explain the fossils being out of order by claiming that the layers were shifted or inverted but that explanation is highly questionable. In order to explain the fossils being out of order in Europe, geologists have suggested that a mass of rock thick enough to contain the entire Matterhorn somehow moved onto Europe from northern Africa. The movement of such a large mass of rock would certainly cause a lot of rubble but there is no sign of anything like that at the boundary between the rock layers. They fit tightly together.

An alternate explanation for the fossil record is that animals which were all alive at the same time were buried by a massive flood. The first to be buried would be the non-mobile bottom dwelling animals such as sponges followed by the slow moving clams and worms. The next to be buried would be swimmers such as jellyfish and fish. The next to be buried would be animals that live on the margins between land and water, amphibians, followed by reptiles. The last to be buried would be fast moving land animals such as mammals and birds. According to this explanation, the fossil record shows the order in which animals were buried, not evolved.

Some geologists say that there could not have been a universal flood because there is no universal disconformity, that is, a break in the sequence of rock layers. It is true that there is no universal disconformity but none is required since the areas under water at the beginning of the flood would be in conformity with the sediments produced by the flood. While not a universal disconformity, there is a very sharp division in the geologic column which can be easily explained by a huge flood. The oldest rocks, the Pre-Cambrian, contain only a few fossils of single celled organisms and also colonies of algae while the next layer, the Cambrian, contains a wealth of fossils of bottom dwelling animals from sponges to trilobites. The best explanation for the sudden appearance of so many fossils is rapid burial. There is a formation called Red Sandstone found throughout the British Isles which contains millions of fossilized fish. The fish are twisted which indicates that they were alive and still struggling when they were buried. Rapid burial would require a flood and no local flood could produce such a widespread layer.

There is other evidence that most rock layers were formed rapidly. The purity of so-called "evaporite" rocks indicates that they were not produced slowly as a shallow sea dried up but rapidly by a chemical reaction in a slurry of dissolved chemicals. A flood would also explain why sometimes fossils are found out of order. The gaps in the geologic column of rocks can be explained by currents that eroded the fresh sediments while they were still soft. The eroded deposits were then re-deposited on top of earlier deposits.

The rapid accumulation of soft sediments would also explain why some rock layers are tilted and folded. I took a photograph of rock layers that were folded into a U about 15 feet across. I cannot imagine any amount of pressure and time that would be able to fold these rocks so tightly without breaking them if they were already hard. But they could have folded quickly and with comparatively little pressure if the rock layers were still soft.

So, when I look at the world, the rock layers and the complexities of life, I see that the evidence for evolution is not as strong as is generally believed and that there are many contradictions to evolution.

Indoctrinated in evolution

I used to believe in evolution. I was thoroughly indoctrinated in evolution when I was in college. My zoology instructor traced evolution step by step. I used to sneer at the idea of creation and pitied anyone who believed in it. I believed that creation was religion and evolution was science and I firmly chose science.

But I was completely ignorant of the religious basis for the widespread belief in evolution. One evolutionist stated that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful and it would take a large number of successive beneficial mutations for evolution to occur so the probability of evolution was incredibly small but he believed that it did happen because he thought the idea of a creator was impossible. That isn't a scientific statement but an incredible leap of faith. According to Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley who was called the Bulldog of Evolution, evolution was widely accepted not because of scientific evidence, but because it freed mankind of their accountability to a creator for their moral choices.

I was also ignorant of the scientific evidence that contradicted evolution and supported creation until I read a book called Scientific Creationism by Dr. Henry Morris whose Ph.D. is in hydraulic engineering. He presented a scientific comparison of two theories of origin: Evolution and Creation. Since origins are one-time events, they are outside the realm of empirical science. Experiments may indicate the probability that something happened in a particular way but that doesn't prove that it actually happened that way.

Since the two theories can't be proven by empirical science, they have to be evaluated according to the principles of theoretical science. A theory makes predictions about the real world. If the world operates as predicted, then the theory is validated. If the world is otherwise, then the theory has to be rejected or modified.

The primary evidence for evolution is comparative anatomy which predated Charles Darwin. It is obvious that the skeletons of different mammals as well as all vertebrates have many common features. This is also true of many facets of plants and animals right down to cellular biology and genes. Evolution claims that the explanation for this is that similar plants and animals are descended from a common ancestor. However, there is another explanation for this. I used to live in a house that was practically identical to the house next door, but no one ever suggested that they were descended from a common ancestor. It was assumed that they were built by the same builder. This was confirmed by historical evidence when I spoke with the builder's daughter. Likewise, animals and plants are similar because they were all created by the same Creator. Similar structures were used for similar purposes and different structures were used for different purposes. So comparative anatomy supports both theories.

Organisms do adapt to their environment but that is also consistent with both theories. A wise creator would include flexibility in his creations so they can adapt to changing environments. The peppered moth in England changed from predominantly light to predominantly dark as the trees were darkened with soot. But that is not an example of evolution because the peppered moth has reverted back to predominantly light now that the air is cleaner.

Natural selection is also consistent with both theories except that according to evolution, improvements are selected and according to creation, harmful changes are eliminated.

Regarding mutations, evolution would predict that they are beneficial since they are what make evolution possible. Creation would predict that they are harmful since the original creatures were perfect so any change is harmful. Evolutionists admit that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful so this contradicts evolution and supports creation.

Regarding variation, evolution would predict that there would be gradual variations producing a continuum of individuals while creation would predict distinct kinds of animals with distinct gaps between the kinds. The fact that plants and animals are readily classified into different genera tends to support creation. However, modern creationists do not insist that God created each species since Darwin pretty well demolished that idea. God apparently created dog-kind with enough built-in variation to produce wolves, coyotes, dingoes and dogs. Darwin jumped to the conclusion that variation would lead to the apperance of new kinds of animals. But dog breeding has shown that there are limits to variation since highly inbred dog breeds suffer from genetic weaknesses.

The fossil record can be made to support evolution if the geological column is organized according to the fossils in the rocks but this is circular reasoning. There are very few locations where the entire geological column is found in order. There are many places where fossils are found out of order. The explanations for how they got out of order are highly questionable as I explained earlier. A massive flood would create the same general order for the fossils and also explain the places when the fossils are out of order as well as the gaps in the geological column.

Regarding the age of the earth, evolution would require a very old earth to allow time for evolution while creation doesn't require old or young. Old age for the earth was calculated based on accumulated rock layers assuming that each layer represented one year but when Mt. St. Helens erupted, geologists discovered that over 600 distinct layers of ash accumulated in one afternoon during the eruption and as the eruption column collapsed.

Old age has also been suggested by radioactive dating of rocks. This is also highly questionable. A lava flow in Hawaii was dated historically at 200 years but potassium-argon dating indicated that it was 2,000 years old. According to potassium-argon dating, the oldest rock at the Grand Canyon is a lava flow which flowed across the rim, dribbled down the side and puddled at the bottom of the canyon. Obviously, the lava flow is actually younger than the canyon but potassium-argon dating gives the false indication of great age for the lava flow.

Of course, there are some objections to a young earth. Since we can see stars that are millions of light years away, I have to assume that when God created stars, he also created their starlight as if they had been shining for many years.

One evidence for a young earth is the accumulation of space dust. Before the first moon landing there was concern because NASA calculated that as much as 120 feet of space dust would have accumulated on the moon over a few billion years. But the astronauts found rocks on the surface. This contradicts an old age for the earth and moon.

(Don't jump on me for this one. I have already heard the arguments reasining why and how the moon may not have collected nearly this much dust.)

Another indication of a young earth is the accumulation of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Recent measurements in the upper atmosphere indicate that C-14 is still accumulating faster than it is decaying so the process has been continuing for less than the 30,000 years it would take for C-14 production and radioactive decay to reach equilibrium.

When the predictions of the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Creation are compared to the real world, Creation's predictions are found to be much more accurate than Evolution's predictions. Evolutionists have found ways to explain these contradictions but support for the theory is weakened because so many explanations are required.

When taken as a whole, the real world gives evidence that belief in a Creator is a reasonable faith and that belief in evolution is not as scientific as it claims. And, once you accept the possibility that the creation had an all powerful and wise Creator, then the creation story is not preposterous at all. In fact, it is quite uplifting to realize that mankind was God's final and greatest creation since God put some of his own creative ability into mankind.

The final prediction of evolution is that humankind will eventually become extinct after we are succeeded by a superior animal or we make the earth uninhabitable. On the other hand, the final prediction of the creation story is found in the last chapter of the Bible. There will be a new heaven and a new earth. People will dwell together in peace in the presence of the Creator.

[whoa182]

Like ive tried to explain in my other threads.

I think believing in Intelligent design does not actually mean you have to believe in any of the religions and how they see it. SO while you look at his argument, think of that too.

i'll reply directly to them arguments after I have breakfast

[Insight]

Like ive tried to explain in my other threads.

I think believing in Intelligent design does not actually mean you have to believe in any of the religions and how they see it. SO while you look at his argument, think of that too.

I shall.

Keep in mind that the only reason i posted this thread was for fodder in the whole biblical contradiction battle. I really couldn't care less what anyone has to say about this subject, but since I was the topic starter, I do have a certain duty to take place in the discussion.

[SilverCougar]

Science is always full of contradictions. That's how we learn. We don't take it "as word and only!" Infact, contradictions are welcomed. That's how we learn, that's how we find new things to study.

[Insight]

You are the first person on this board to ever say something like that to me.

[SilverCougar]

Say... what? The way things work in science? I mean hell... they rewrote Cleopatra's death... It only takes one person to question... and through research and studies, and investigations, we can even proof possitive, or totaly find something else completely different.

[aquatus1]

You are the first person on this board to ever say something like that to me.

421195[/snapback]

I beg your pardon?

[JennRose]

Yeah, Silvercougar's not the only person here who believes science is fallible.

There are all kinds of minds on this board, and some blindy accept scientific theories the same way others blindy accept religious doctrines. It doesn't really matter what you say to either group, you won't change their minds, so you need to address the people who are honestly searching for answers.

There's a similar thread going in regards to intelligent design, so if no one objects I will just post my two posts from it here:

I'm not really fully convinced either way. I do think of myself as a Deist, though, and find it mind-boggling and frankly hard to believe that everything could have ultimately resulted from energy colliding. Some things are so intricate, for example: the way the eye works or the fact that there are 2 sexes and we don't just duplicate ourselves (which would be an 'easier' way to reproduce) leads me to think there was something else behind it than just random chance.

and

I mean genetically duplicating oneself. Sure, genetic diversity is wonderful for higher organisms, but it's much simpler on the cellular level to just divide rather than search for a suitable mate and attempt to rear young. I think it's hard to imagine, in a purely evolutionary sense, a more perfectly functional creation than a single cell organism. Why would it have had any reason to change? Seems like it had some outside encouragement.

[Stellar]

Random changes almost always result in disorder and disintegration.

Note the word *almost*

There are rare instances where random events produce order, such as in crystal formation, but DNA is far more complex than crystals and the information stored by DNA is far more complex than DNA.

That really doesnt in any way imply its impossible, it simply says that DNA and info is more complex.

Can you believe that the complexities of life are the result of random mutations, especially when at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful?

Hence the reason evolution is a slow process maybe?

These bones magnify sound so natural selection would select mammalian ears when they were fully functional, but what about the generations while these bones were evolving? How would reptiles chew when their jawbones were dislocating and migrating toward the ear?

Thats some of the oddest things I've ever heard.

When conjoint twins are born, are they seperate at first and then start joining, or are they just joined together since birth? Are the parents in random stages of being joined together, or not?

This is partly the reason people keep claiming theres no transitional fossils. They believe that, lets make up an example to clearly illustrate what I mean... Say, a rat evolves into a bat. They expect a rat with no wings, then a rat with small bulges, then a rat with a little bigger bulge, then a rat, at one point, with tiney wings and also 4 feet, then the rats wings keep growing and the front paws start shrinking. Thats not exactly the way it works.

Keep in mind that the only reason i posted this thread was for fodder in the whole biblical contradiction battle. I really couldn't care less what anyone has to say about this subject, but since I was the topic starter, I do have a certain duty to take place in the discussion.

So you're saying that you really dont want to hear any explenations?

I've been on the forum for over an hour now, I think I'll continue later.

Edited December 24, 2004 by Stellar

[Insight]

Note the word *almost*

Understand that the probability for any mutation to be beneficial is 0.1%

There are rare instances where random events produce order, such as in crystal formation, but DNA is far more complex than crystals and the information stored by DNA is far more complex than DNA.

That really doesnt in any way imply its impossible, it simply says that DNA and info is more complex.

DNA is the most complex molecule in the universe. Even the simple cell's DNA contained more exponetial data that an entire galaxy does.

Can you believe that the complexities of life are the result of random mutations, especially when at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful?

Hence the reason evolution is a slow process maybe?

The odds do not get greater over time however. They get worse. Do you understand the progression of mathematical odds? The shorter the span, the better they are. The longer the span, the worse they are. A 99.9% harmful mutation rate couldn't account for the evolutionary process mutations in the time span evolutionists say that life has evolved for.

These bones magnify sound so natural selection would select mammalian ears when they were fully functional, but what about the generations while these bones were evolving? How would reptiles chew when their jawbones were dislocating and migrating toward the ear?

Thats some of the oddest things I've ever heard.

I agree.

When conjoint twins are born, are they seperate at first and then start joining, or are they just joined together since birth? Are the parents in random stages of being joined together, or not?

This is partly the reason people keep claiming theres no transitional fossils. They believe that, lets make up an example to clearly illustrate what I mean... Say, a rat evolves into a bat. They expect a rat with no wings, then a rat with small bulges, then a rat with a little bigger bulge, then a rat, at one point, with tiney wings and also 4 feet, then the rats wings keep growing and the front paws start shrinking. Thats not exactly the way it works.

How does it work?

Keep in mind that the only reason i posted this thread was for fodder in the whole biblical contradiction battle. I really couldn't care less what anyone has to say about this subject, but since I was the topic starter, I do have a certain duty to take place in the discussion.

So you're saying that you really dont want to hear any explenations?

Not at all. I am open to entertain any supposed explination. I just don't really have the energy right now to launch into a whole discussion of creo VS evo.

You are the first person on this board to ever say something like that to me.

*

I beg your pardon?

Oops, sorry aquatus1. I made a mistake. I still need to keep our thred alive. i haven't forgotten. Don't worry. It just hasn't been in the forefront of my mind lately. But I still have alot of question to ask which I believe only you can answer.

[Stellar]

Understand that the probability for any mutation to be beneficial is 0.1%

So you're saying there will be lots of beneficial mutations?

DNA is the most complex molecule in the universe. Even the simple cell's DNA contained more exponetial data that an entire galaxy does.

Galaxy not including the beings in it I suppose you mean. Either way, it really doesnt change anything.

The odds do not get greater over time however. They get worse. Do you understand the progression of mathematical odds? The shorter the span, the better they are. The longer the span, the worse they are. A 99.9% harmful mutation rate couldn't account for the evolutionary process mutations in the time span evolutionists say that life has evolved for.

Where did you get that info from?

How does it work?

Like bugs developped an immunity. They dont start developping an immunity to pesticides and then that immunity grows... it appears. With the physical changes, theres more steps, but if it has no function, chances are its not going to last.

Not at all. I am open to entertain any supposed explination. I just don't really have the energy right now to launch into a whole discussion of creo VS evo.

Well, I can skim the surface of everything, or I can try to go indepth, but if I go indepth, it'll only be probably after the 27th and I dont see why you wouldnt need to have me in this thread and aquatus in the other. Its up to you I guess.

[RaginCajun]

i find it hard to believe what you say insight...for a man that so strongly opposses people with "psy powers" because there is no fact and proof.

you wrote, "Actually, it is physically impossible to change the color of your eyes. That color is set in stone the moment the first cell in the uterus splits for the first time. " in a different post. here you are using science and a fact.

i can't seem to understand people that run with the pack of religion when they actually use scientific fact to dispell what they so strongly disagree with(general statement. i don't know what you believe in). in this case, fact-less Boli_Delish is like you and we become you in that tread.

Edited December 25, 2004 by RaginCajun

[Insight]

Understand that the probability for any mutation to be beneficial is 0.1%

So you're saying there will be lots of beneficial mutations?

No, you do not understand exponetial progression. If there is a 0.1% chance of any given mutation being beneficial, there is a 0.01% of another benefical mutation building off the old one. If is took 1000 progressive and beneficial mutationa for a fish to become a rat, the chance of it ever happening would be a

0.00000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

00000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

0000000000

000000000.1% chance.

Now, imagine what the chances are of a fish evolving into a human being?

Never in even a trillion years. Mathematicians say that any odd greater than 1 in 1 million os mathematically insignifficant.

Galaxy not including the beings in it I suppose you mean. Either way, it really doesnt change anything.

Actually, it does. What this means, is that there is not enough random data in the universe to ever form a single cell. Quantum physicists theorieze the entire universe contains 130 bits of exponetial data. A Single ceel is said to have 2000 bits of exponetial data. What this actually means is that it is impossible for life to form randomly out of the material information contained in all matter.

The odds do not get greater over time however. They get worse. Do you understand the progression of mathematical odds? The shorter the span, the better they are. The longer the span, the worse they are. A 99.9% harmful mutation rate couldn't account for the evolutionary process mutations in the time span evolutionists say that life has evolved for.

Where did you get that info from?

It's common mathematics.

Like bugs developped an immunity. They dont start developping an immunity to pesticides and then that immunity grows... it appears. With the physical changes, theres more steps, but if it has no function, chances are its not going to last.

Lets say a bug manages to develop a complete immunity to ever single toxin that exists. Does that buig become anything more that the species of bug it already is? No. It beccomes a BREED of bug which is immine to toxins. If you took a bunch of bugs which were immune to toxins, and bred them with bugs who were not, their off spring would have LESS of an immunity towards toxins. It's all breeding, and variation within the species. Humans, if left in the sun, will turn brown. They develop immunity to the sun. But, if you are a very tanned person, and you have a child, your child will not be tanned when it pops out. It will only become tanned when it is exposed to the sun. Adaptation is not evolution.

[Insight]

i find it hard to believe what you say insight...for a man that so strongly opposses people with "psy powers" because there is no fact and proof.

Ah, this is a misconception you have about me. I do not deny the existance of psionics. I used to study them, and practice them. I know they are real. I know how deep they run. However, I also know how to tell if a person is a fraud, or naive. I have no problem talking about telekinetic abilities with someone who actually knows something about them. But understand, kids come on here all the time, and claim to learn multiple abilities after a few months. Anyone who has actually experienced suscees with these techniques will tell you learning them quickly from an "internet" technique is basically impossible. All of the people who claim these abilities are still in school. their minds are still developing. Hell, when i was 13 I used to think I could read people's minds. But when I grew older, I realized how foolish and naive that was, and dedicated a study of actual psionics.

you wrote, "Actually, it is physically impossible to change the color of your eyes. That color is set in stone the moment the first cell in the uterus splits for the first time. " in a different post. here you are using science and a fact.

Yes I am. Your point?

i can't seem to understand people that run with the pack of religion when they actually use scientific fact to dispell what they so strongly disagree with.

You seem to think science has no place in the life of a person who believes in God? Currently study biology, computer sciences and information technology, and psychology. Are you saying that I will never make any progress in the scientiffic community simply because I believe in God? That's not what my past test scores seemed to indicate.

in this case, fact-less Boli_Delish is like you and we become you in that tread.

I believe reading the above statements will rectify this statement you have made.

The fact of the matter is, that since science cannot observe, or reproduce either the process of creation, or evolution, neither are a science, but a belief of faith. One has to believe in one or the other before they will find facts on either of the two. A wise man said, 'That which is believed is eventually proven true." Some people believe in creationism, and they have been able to prove it true to themselves using science. Some people believe in evolution, and have been able to prove it to them using science. Just because the public shcools teach evoution as opposed to creationism doesn't make either one of the less or more valid. When my little brother was a child, his teacher told him that whales were "Big Fish", as opposed to mammals. Who controls what people learn in school? The school board. Who controls the school board? The government. WHo controls the government? The eltie. Who controls the elite? The Illumminati. You see, it wouldn't even matter if mainstream science DID support creationism. SInce creationism cannot be observed or reproduced, it is not a science. Nor is evolution.l

[Insight]

But whatever, I need to finish my discussions with aquatus befoire I make any more claims

[RaginCajun]

(removed comment.)

Edited December 25, 2004 by RaginCajun

[aquatus1]

Insight,

In regards to your post concerning exponential progression, I'm afraid that it suffers from the creationist tendency to view things as having a purpose. In other words, because creationists believe that God created everything for a reason, then everything must have been meant to be exactly what it is. This is not the proper way to view evolution. Evolution has no purpose, no ultimate goal. A fish does not set out to become a rat, nor is its starting point 'fish and its ending point 'rat'. By assuming that a fish was meant to become a rat, you start at the conclusion (rat), and thus violate one of the pre-reqs of scientific methodology.

The proper way to look at random events is through examples of random events, not through the calculation of a specific event. Let us, then, look at the most famous example of random events: the lottery.

Out of a possible hundred numbers, three are chosen randomly. Tickets are sold, and the person who holds these three numbers on their ticket will win. Out of the several thousands of people who regularly play the lottery, the chances of one picking the three numbers is entirely possible, and in fact winners appear every few weeks. There is absolutely nothing miraculous about this; it is simply the result of a random set of events culminating in an unforseen result. To the person administrating the lottery, the fact that there will be a winner is almost inevitable.

But now let us look at this random event not as a random event, but as a specific event. Instead of beginning with the selection of the lottery numbers, we begin at the conclusion, with the person who holds the winning ticket. If we assume that this person was 'meant' to be the winner, then we are forced to conclude that something miraculous has happened. Out of all the possible results that could have occured when the numbers where picked, the odds of this single person picking the correct three numbers is astronomical (1 in 1,834,000 if the disclaimer is to be believed). Truly, when viewed from this perspective, we are tempted to think that some higher power must have influenced the outcome.

And yet, evolution does not work that way. Evolution is a series of random events without a 'winner' in mind as an end result. There is no rat, no lucky winner, as a conclusion. The rat is merely one of the many hundreds of thousands of possible results. By viewing the random events that make up evolution in sequence from beginning to end, it becomes very clear to us that the bird would inevitably become something, in this case a rat. Viewed from the other end, however, with the belief that a rat and only a rat is what was meant to be, we are again deluded into believing that a miracle has occured, because the odds of a random sequence producing a specific event are so high.

[Stellar]

Alright, I wouldnt have thought of putting it as good as aquatus put it.

[Ashley-Star*Child]

Recently, I received an email which said, "You don’t honestly believe that preposterous creation story do you???" This is my reply.

Do you believe that preposterous evolution story where a series of random changes resulted in incredibly complex and interdependent ecosystems? It sure doesn't work that way in my garage! It quickly becomes cluttered and unusable unless I regularly clean and organize it. Random changes almost always result in disorder and disintegration. There are rare instances where random events produce order, such as in crystal formation, but DNA is far more complex than crystals and the information stored by DNA is far more complex than DNA. Can you believe that the complexities of life are the result of random mutations, especially when at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful?

Evolution claims that natural selection is the "organizer" that keeps the beneficial mutations and eliminates the harmful. But, how would natural selection recognize a beneficial mutation when a series of mutations are required to produce a beneficial change? For example, evolution teaches that bones from reptiles' jaws evolved into the bones in mammals' middle ears. These bones magnify sound so natural selection would select mammalian ears when they were fully functional, but what about the generations while these bones were evolving? How would reptiles chew when their jawbones were dislocating and migrating toward the ear? How would early mammals hear before the bones in their middle ears were properly connected? Natural selection most likely would have eliminated the transitional forms long before they had developed enough to have a hearing advantage. Likewise, a reptile whose front legs were evolving into wings would be crippled and easy prey until the wings were fully functional. The Archaeopteryx is often given as an example of a transitional form between flying reptiles and birds but it isn’t. Even though it had teeth and a tail like a reptile, this bird had fully formed feathers which are much more complex than frayed scales. There are no known fossils of transitional forms showing how new limbs or organs evolved. Evolutionists used to list several vestigial organs in humans including the appendix and hypothalamus, which were thought to be useless organs left over from earlier stages of human evolution. This list disappeared as important functions were discovered for each organ on the list. The fossil record and currently living animals do not provide any examples of evolving organs or half-formed limbs.

Another way that the fossil record contradicts evolution is that there are many instances where fossils are out of order in the layers of rock. It is possible to explain the fossils being out of order by claiming that the layers were shifted or inverted but that explanation is highly questionable. In order to explain the fossils being out of order in Europe, geologists have suggested that a mass of rock thick enough to contain the entire Matterhorn somehow moved onto Europe from northern Africa. The movement of such a large mass of rock would certainly cause a lot of rubble but there is no sign of anything like that at the boundary between the rock layers. They fit tightly together.

An alternate explanation for the fossil record is that animals which were all alive at the same time were buried by a massive flood. The first to be buried would be the non-mobile bottom dwelling animals such as sponges followed by the slow moving clams and worms. The next to be buried would be swimmers such as jellyfish and fish. The next to be buried would be animals that live on the margins between land and water, amphibians, followed by reptiles. The last to be buried would be fast moving land animals such as mammals and birds. According to this explanation, the fossil record shows the order in which animals were buried, not evolved.

Some geologists say that there could not have been a universal flood because there is no universal disconformity, that is, a break in the sequence of rock layers. It is true that there is no universal disconformity but none is required since the areas under water at the beginning of the flood would be in conformity with the sediments produced by the flood. While not a universal disconformity, there is a very sharp division in the geologic column which can be easily explained by a huge flood. The oldest rocks, the Pre-Cambrian, contain only a few fossils of single celled organisms and also colonies of algae while the next layer, the Cambrian, contains a wealth of fossils of bottom dwelling animals from sponges to trilobites. The best explanation for the sudden appearance of so many fossils is rapid burial. There is a formation called Red Sandstone found throughout the British Isles which contains millions of fossilized fish. The fish are twisted which indicates that they were alive and still struggling when they were buried. Rapid burial would require a flood and no local flood could produce such a widespread layer.

There is other evidence that most rock layers were formed rapidly. The purity of so-called "evaporite" rocks indicates that they were not produced slowly as a shallow sea dried up but rapidly by a chemical reaction in a slurry of dissolved chemicals. A flood would also explain why sometimes fossils are found out of order. The gaps in the geologic column of rocks can be explained by currents that eroded the fresh sediments while they were still soft. The eroded deposits were then re-deposited on top of earlier deposits.

The rapid accumulation of soft sediments would also explain why some rock layers are tilted and folded. I took a photograph of rock layers that were folded into a U about 15 feet across. I cannot imagine any amount of pressure and time that would be able to fold these rocks so tightly without breaking them if they were already hard. But they could have folded quickly and with comparatively little pressure if the rock layers were still soft.

So, when I look at the world, the rock layers and the complexities of life, I see that the evidence for evolution is not as strong as is generally believed and that there are many contradictions to evolution.

Indoctrinated in evolution

I used to believe in evolution. I was thoroughly indoctrinated in evolution when I was in college. My zoology instructor traced evolution step by step. I used to sneer at the idea of creation and pitied anyone who believed in it. I believed that creation was religion and evolution was science and I firmly chose science.

But I was completely ignorant of the religious basis for the widespread belief in evolution. One evolutionist stated that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful and it would take a large number of successive beneficial mutations for evolution to occur so the probability of evolution was incredibly small but he believed that it did happen because he thought the idea of a creator was impossible. That isn't a scientific statement but an incredible leap of faith. According to Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley who was called the Bulldog of Evolution, evolution was widely accepted not because of scientific evidence, but because it freed mankind of their accountability to a creator for their moral choices.

I was also ignorant of the scientific evidence that contradicted evolution and supported creation until I read a book called Scientific Creationism by Dr. Henry Morris whose Ph.D. is in hydraulic engineering. He presented a scientific comparison of two theories of origin: Evolution and Creation. Since origins are one-time events, they are outside the realm of empirical science. Experiments may indicate the probability that something happened in a particular way but that doesn't prove that it actually happened that way.

Since the two theories can't be proven by empirical science, they have to be evaluated according to the principles of theoretical science. A theory makes predictions about the real world. If the world operates as predicted, then the theory is validated. If the world is otherwise, then the theory has to be rejected or modified.

The primary evidence for evolution is comparative anatomy which predated Charles Darwin. It is obvious that the skeletons of different mammals as well as all vertebrates have many common features. This is also true of many facets of plants and animals right down to cellular biology and genes. Evolution claims that the explanation for this is that similar plants and animals are descended from a common ancestor. However, there is another explanation for this. I used to live in a house that was practically identical to the house next door, but no one ever suggested that they were descended from a common ancestor. It was assumed that they were built by the same builder. This was confirmed by historical evidence when I spoke with the builder's daughter. Likewise, animals and plants are similar because they were all created by the same Creator. Similar structures were used for similar purposes and different structures were used for different purposes. So comparative anatomy supports both theories.

Organisms do adapt to their environment but that is also consistent with both theories. A wise creator would include flexibility in his creations so they can adapt to changing environments. The peppered moth in England changed from predominantly light to predominantly dark as the trees were darkened with soot. But that is not an example of evolution because the peppered moth has reverted back to predominantly light now that the air is cleaner.

Natural selection is also consistent with both theories except that according to evolution, improvements are selected and according to creation, harmful changes are eliminated.

Regarding mutations, evolution would predict that they are beneficial since they are what make evolution possible. Creation would predict that they are harmful since the original creatures were perfect so any change is harmful. Evolutionists admit that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful so this contradicts evolution and supports creation.

Regarding variation, evolution would predict that there would be gradual variations producing a continuum of individuals while creation would predict distinct kinds of animals with distinct gaps between the kinds. The fact that plants and animals are readily classified into different genera tends to support creation. However, modern creationists do not insist that God created each species since Darwin pretty well demolished that idea. God apparently created dog-kind with enough built-in variation to produce wolves, coyotes, dingoes and dogs. Darwin jumped to the conclusion that variation would lead to the apperance of new kinds of animals. But dog breeding has shown that there are limits to variation since highly inbred dog breeds suffer from genetic weaknesses.

The fossil record can be made to support evolution if the geological column is organized according to the fossils in the rocks but this is circular reasoning. There are very few locations where the entire geological column is found in order. There are many places where fossils are found out of order. The explanations for how they got out of order are highly questionable as I explained earlier. A massive flood would create the same general order for the fossils and also explain the places when the fossils are out of order as well as the gaps in the geological column.

Regarding the age of the earth, evolution would require a very old earth to allow time for evolution while creation doesn't require old or young. Old age for the earth was calculated based on accumulated rock layers assuming that each layer represented one year but when Mt. St. Helens erupted, geologists discovered that over 600 distinct layers of ash accumulated in one afternoon during the eruption and as the eruption column collapsed.

Old age has also been suggested by radioactive dating of rocks. This is also highly questionable. A lava flow in Hawaii was dated historically at 200 years but potassium-argon dating indicated that it was 2,000 years old. According to potassium-argon dating, the oldest rock at the Grand Canyon is a lava flow which flowed across the rim, dribbled down the side and puddled at the bottom of the canyon. Obviously, the lava flow is actually younger than the canyon but potassium-argon dating gives the false indication of great age for the lava flow.

Of course, there are some objections to a young earth. Since we can see stars that are millions of light years away, I have to assume that when God created stars, he also created their starlight as if they had been shining for many years.

One evidence for a young earth is the accumulation of space dust. Before the first moon landing there was concern because NASA calculated that as much as 120 feet of space dust would have accumulated on the moon over a few billion years. But the astronauts found rocks on the surface. This contradicts an old age for the earth and moon.

(Don't jump on me for this one. I have already heard the arguments reasining why and how the moon may not have collected nearly this much dust.)

Another indication of a young earth is the accumulation of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Recent measurements in the upper atmosphere indicate that C-14 is still accumulating faster than it is decaying so the process has been continuing for less than the 30,000 years it would take for C-14 production and radioactive decay to reach equilibrium.

When the predictions of the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Creation are compared to the real world, Creation's predictions are found to be much more accurate than Evolution's predictions. Evolutionists have found ways to explain these contradictions but support for the theory is weakened because so many explanations are required.

When taken as a whole, the real world gives evidence that belief in a Creator is a reasonable faith and that belief in evolution is not as scientific as it claims. And, once you accept the possibility that the creation had an all powerful and wise Creator, then the creation story is not preposterous at all. In fact, it is quite uplifting to realize that mankind was God's final and greatest creation since God put some of his own creative ability into mankind.

The final prediction of evolution is that humankind will eventually become extinct after we are succeeded by a superior animal or we make the earth uninhabitable. On the other hand, the final prediction of the creation story is found in the last chapter of the Bible. There will be a new heaven and a new earth. People will dwell together in peace in the presence of the Creator.

421161[/snapback]

The Archaeopteryx is often given as an example of a transitional form between flying reptiles and birds but it isn’t. Even though it had teeth and a tail like a reptile, this bird had fully formed feathers which are much more complex than frayed scales. There are no known fossils of transitional forms showing how new limbs or organs evolved.

Ahh, this part is good. I always get a little nauseated when people start blabbering on about how dinosaurs turned into wee wittle birdies. Yeah, and the Moon's made of cheese too.

You say religion and it's explanation of the world's creation is 'delusional', despite it's millenia of origin, but science whose prominence as it is now is but a century old has made more LSD inspired fairytales trying to explain their 'evolution' than Disney. And they wonder why their theories are flawed.

Edited December 27, 2004 by Ashley-Star*Child

[aquatus1]

Ahh, this part is good. I always get a little nauseated when people start blabbering on about how dinosaurs turned into wee wittle birdies. Yeah, and the Moon's made of cheese too.

I take it, then, that you are completely unfamiliar with the transitional steps that make up the evolution of the feather. You are aware, aren't you, that the archeopteryx is not considered the first feathered dinosaur, nor is it in the evolutionary line of modern day animals? Do these claims come from scientists, or are they simply creationist propaganda first begun decades ago and never updated with the new information that science has long since discovered, absorbed, and accepted into it's broad accumulation of evolutionary evidence?

You say religion and it's explanation of the world's creation is 'delusional', despite it's millenia of origin, but science whose prominence as it is now is but a century old has made more LSD inspired fairytales trying to explain their 'evolution' than Disney. And they wonder why their theories are flawed.

"LSD inspired fairytales"? Science has a verification procedure that requires years of study, a preponderance of evidence, and complete dissemination of data to the communities for general agreement, and you consider those fairytales? Each and every scientist who graduates has to repeat the exact same experiments in order to learn their field from its most basic foundations in order to verify its credibility, and you refer to those as fairytales? Science has very clear, very concise requirements for what it will accept as an explanation of a natural force, and you refer to these as fairytales?

What does religion offer in the way of verification? A book? A person who insists to you that they believe it, therefore you should too?

Creationism is no more an theory than the sharp "Because I said so!" from a tired parent is an explanation. An explanation is something supportable. An explanation will remain equally valid to anyone who hears it, regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter. If you wish to believe in creationism, then by all means do so. Do not, however, insult science by equating its intentionally rigid and painfully through method of evaluation to the simple acceptance of religion.

[Insight]

In regards to your post concerning exponential progression, I'm afraid that it suffers from the creationist tendency to view things as having a purpose. In other words, because creationists believe that God created everything for a reason, then everything must have been meant to be exactly what it is. This is not the proper way to view evolution. Evolution has no purpose, no ultimate goal. A fish does not set out to become a rat, nor is its starting point 'fish and its ending point 'rat'. By assuming that a fish was meant to become a rat, you start at the conclusion (rat), and thus violate one of the pre-reqs of scientific methodology.

Your completely right in what you have said here. However, I needed a simple example to get my simple point accross. Nothing more.

Out of a possible hundred numbers, three are chosen randomly. Tickets are sold, and the person who holds these three numbers on their ticket will win. Out of the several thousands of people who regularly play the lottery, the chances of one picking the three numbers is entirely possible, and in fact winners appear every few weeks. There is absolutely nothing miraculous about this; it is simply the result of a random set of events culminating in an unforseen result. To the person administrating the lottery, the fact that there will be a winner is almost inevitable.

But now let us look at this random event not as a random event, but as a specific event. Instead of beginning with the selection of the lottery numbers, we begin at the conclusion, with the person who holds the winning ticket. If we assume that this person was 'meant' to be the winner, then we are forced to conclude that something miraculous has happened. Out of all the possible results that could have occured when the numbers where picked, the odds of this single person picking the correct three numbers is astronomical (1 in 1,834,000 if the disclaimer is to be believed). Truly, when viewed from this perspective, we are tempted to think that some higher power must have influenced the outcome.

Not nessesarily. A person winning the lottery is hardly miraculous. But what about a person who wins it twice in a row? Or three times in a row? 100 times in a row? Or how about a person who never looses the lottery? Are any of these possible? Mathematically, yes. Probably, no. This is how I see the changes in evolution. Methamatically it is supposedly be possible for it to happen. But it doesn't seem like it ever could happen, given the odds. I guess the same is true from your side of the fence regarding my belief in a Creator.

And yet, evolution does not work that way. Evolution is a series of random events without a 'winner' in mind as an end result. There is no rat, no lucky winner, as a conclusion.

Could it be said that whatever life from advanced from it's previous form is the winner? Or what ever life form survived the longest? There is not conclusion, as you have said. No lucky winner. No rat. But could you not say that the winner in evolution is the being who is able to trancend whatever form it may be in?

The rat is merely one of the many hundreds of thousands of possible results.

Possibility and probability are different though. I'm sure there must be an explination for probability in transition between forms. Life is limited you our earth, for example, and it is not probably that an animal would evolve to be able to breath mercury.

By viewing the random events that make up evolution in sequence from beginning to end, it becomes very clear to us that the bird would inevitably become something, in this case a rat. Viewed from the other end, however, with the belief that a rat and only a rat is what was meant to be, we are again deluded into believing that a miracle has occured, because the odds of a random sequence producing a specific event are so high.

I totally understand what you are talking about with this part. However, why do we see so many trends with land animals? Such as the four legged phenomena. ALso, why does every land creature breath oxygen, when there is more nitrogen in the atmopshere?

[aquatus1]

Before I begin, for the benefit of others, I do not believe Insight thinks birds evolved into rats. This is simply used in these posts as an example. It should not be taken as a statement of fact, but rather as a broad (very broad) example of evolutionary theory.

Not nessesarily. A person winning the lottery is hardly miraculous. But what about a person who wins it twice in a row? Or three times in a row? 100 times in a row? Or how about a person who never looses the lottery? Are any of these possible? Mathematically, yes. Probably, no. This is how I see the changes in evolution. Methamatically it is supposedly be possible for it to happen. But it doesn't seem like it ever could happen, given the odds. I guess the same is true from your side of the fence regarding my belief in a Creator.

But again, you are seeing each of these steps as a conclusion, as a winning ticket. There is no such thing. A bird that evolves a tail is no more a winner than a bird who evolves gills. It is only when you decide that there must be an end result, i.e. a rat, that you can say that the bird who evolved the tail was a winner, and then the one who evolved the fur was a winner, etc. This is why it is so important to start at the beginning, rather than at the conclusion.

Could it be said that whatever life from advanced from it's previous form is the winner? Or what ever life form survived the longest? There is not conclusion, as you have said. No lucky winner. No rat. But could you not say that the winner in evolution is the being who is able to trancend whatever form it may be in?

Not at all. Trancendence means nothing to evolution. Trancendence implies that you have become something greater than what you were before. Evolution isn't concerned with greatness or complexity. Evolution is simply random genetic changes, and the only way to pick winners is to find the ones who are able to survive long enough to bring forth the next generation. Perhaps the evolutionary change is an advantage to breeding and survival (very low probability). Perhaps it is fatal (more likely). Perhaps it has no effect at all, in and of itself (most likely of all).

Possibility and probability are different though. I'm sure there must be an explination for probability in transition between forms. Life is limited you our earth, for example, and it is not probably that an animal would evolve to be able to breath mercury.

You would think so, wouldn't you? And yet, there have been evolutionary changes that have resulted in the most mindboggling of events: the evolution of the ability to feed on a substance that was never even in existance until humans invented it! If you would like to know more about this, I invite you to read the Evo vs. Cre debate in the Debate section.

I totally understand what you are talking about with this part. However, why do we see so many trends with land animals? Such as the four legged phenomena. ALso, why does every land creature breath oxygen, when there is more nitrogen in the atmopshere?

Excellent questions. It is these very questions, in fact, that first prompted Darwin to question the validity of creationism. After all, why would a God, with the power to create the heavens, the earth, mankind, and angelics, the sky and hell, be suddenly so restricted in imagination as to endow almost all of his creations with almost identical features? Would it not make more sense that perhaps there was one original creature, from which others developed from, thus sharing the same basic characteristics, yet differing in key points of physiology? The same holds true with breathing oxygen. Why would a god create a human with intent of having him go forth and multiply not allow him to take advantage of the most abundant element in the universe? Would it not make a bit more sense that we simply developed the ability to process one particular element that suited our needs? If it was a coincidence, there isn't much left to explain. If, however, it was meant to be, then we have a great many questions left that we will simply never be able to answer.