Here is a simple explanation of why i believe evolution is wrong, I attempted to cut out everything but that so bear with the biblical.
"Evolution is a proven fact." Wrong. Neither evolution, nor Creation is proven, because we cannot now see either theory in operation today. Both ideas are theories that must be accepted by faith. The person's conclusions for their faith must be based upon truth though - the evolutionist has no proof, only more theories. The Creationist has the words of the Bible which can be proven in a court to be true. It has been consistently proven there are no false statements in the Bible!

Science is a body of knowledge that can be demonstrated and observed as fact. If something cannot be proven with observable evidence, then it is only a theory, and not science. Scientific facts are called laws. For anything to become scientific law, it must stand up to two processes: observability (it can be seen) and repeatability (it can be repeated). Anything that cannot be repeated, or observed now, is only a THEORY - it can never be fact

A Scientific Law is a verifiable fact that has been observed, and repeated, and therefore proven to be true. Science is supposed to be based on Laws, not theories. Up until 1880, science was ONLY interested in developing LAWS based upon FACTS. But now science has to be popular, and has been swayed towards focusing on generating theories, while ignoring established facts.


What Evolution is. Evolution is a theory of the origin of all things based upon a process of continuous “innovative� change. It states the universe is continually improving itself through this "process." It may take billions of years, but it is supposedly gradually improving! This usually means without allowing for an outside Creator’s help. It represents the acceptance of anything that can explain the existence of this universe, as long as it does not allow for the existence of God.

1. Some Scientific Laws Against ANY Form of Evolution.



1. The Laws of Thermodynamics (Heat Energy).



a. The first law says energy and matter can be transformed (changed) and altered, but cannot now be created or destroyed. This Law does away with Theory B. A universe that accidentally "big banged" out of nothing is unscientific since matter can't naturally be created (see Nehemiah 9:6). Evolution requires you to believe everything “accidentally� came from nothing!

b. The second law states that energy in a closed system[1] will run out. This is called ENTROPY. All forms of energy run down like a watch. For example: things do not grow toward order and cleanliness by accident (ask any housewife with kids). Nothing is in the process of "evolving" (getting better, and more advanced, and more powerful), but rather EVERYTHING which can be seen demonstrates dissipation, disintegration, decay and degeneration. Nothing is "improved" unless it is worked on by an outside force! This Law is stated in Isaiah 51:6, and does away with Theory A since if the universe had always been here, it would have "burned-out" long ago! Even though matter and energy cannot disappear, energy is always slowing down - never increasing (and never being replaced)! An example is the burning of a fire log. The log burns, and produces heat energy. That energy is then gone from the log, and cannot be produced from the same log anymore.



2. The Law of Cause and Effect. To every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. For every effect that we see in the universe, there had to be an original cause. Evolution requires that all of ORDER came from CHAOS being “helped along� - again “accidentally.�

3. The Law of Biogenetics demonstrates that life ONLY comes from life! Every living organism comes only from living organisms (John 1:1-4)! Never has life "spontaneously" come from a dead thing.

4. Mendel’s Laws. Gregor Mendel (1822-1914) proved scientifically:



a. Only genetic characteristics are inherited (things that are already coded in the DNA molecules of a gene) - only things that the parent already had “in� themselves, are passed on to the next generation. Nothing new can be passed on except for mutations which are 99.9% disastrous to the next generation.

b. Variations are built-into the DNA code of an organism - this allows for variations in a specific kind of animal - i.e., a dog’s genes have many variations already built-in (doberman, terrier, greyhound), just as a cat’s genes have many variations, etc.

c. Variations outside of the limits of the genetic code do not occur. The variations do not include the ability for offspring to turn into anything BUT what the parent was - i.e., a cat ALWAYS produces a cat! Never a cat-dog, or a butterfly, or a frog, etc.

d. No “new� characteristics appear in ANY species (it would be like trying to play keys on a piano that aren't there) except by mutation - which ALWAYS means a degradation of the offspring’s quality of life - which is opposite of the evolutionary theory.

e. All mutations are proven to be destructive to the off-spring, because they are “degenerative� and not evolutionary - the next generation ALWAYS becomes sterile.

2. Some Scientific Laws Proving Evolution… NONE!



1. Evolution requires that there would exist some natural force that is “guiding� everything toward higher and higher levels of complexity.

2. This “Law� would be called, a law of “increasing organization.�

3. This “law� does NOT exist anywhere!!!

3. Order Out of Chaos? Could you believe that a delicate and beautiful Swiss watch could come from an explosion in a steel mill, or that a dictionary could come from an explosion in a print shop? Then how could a rational person believe that all the beauties and perfection of nature result from an explosion of hot gasses back at the "big bang?" Only if you are told again and again that it MUST have happened!
4. Find the Fossil Evidence. The theory of evolution contends that life appeared "spontaneously" on the earth, and that over millions of years, life forms changed and became more complex. Man is assumed to be the product of this process. Fossils, the remains of dead plants and animals, have supposedly left a record of the organisms that once populated the earth.


Modern research has shown that in recorded history, species are constantly moving toward extinction. Every day, more than 50 species become extinct. If evolution were true, one would expect to see the process providing examples of emerging species in their "transitional forms." The question arises, "where are the emerging species and their transitional forms?"[2] The fossil record shows no transitional forms - only fully developed creatures, in all strata!


Evolutionary Hoaxes, Scams, and Abuses



1. Dating Methods - Billions? Millions? Or Just Thousands of Years Old?



1. Date the fossils by the “strata� they are found in. Most scientists believe that layers of the earth’s crust (called strata) represent different time periods, and were laid down over millions and even billions of years. In the 1800’s, each layer was labeled by its depth and rock type. Then, the fossils found within each layer were classified by that layer (i.e., Cambrian, Jurassic, Carboniferous, etc).

2. Date the strata by what fossils are found in it. As time went on, strata were not found to be uniform in layering, and so the fossil type that was found in each strata was used to label the strata. The problem is this: based upon a preliminary assumption in the 1800's that all the strata in the world were laid down uniformly, all fossils and strata are classified based upon each other’s preliminary labeling - i.e., the strata is identified by the fossils it contains, and the fossils are classified by the strata they are found in - circular reasoning! Not science!

3. The “Flood� ruined everything! A creationist approaches the problem from the vantage of the world-wide flood of Genesis 7 & 8, which sorted the fossils and strata in a cataclysmic, not uniform fashion.



2. The So-Called “Missing Links� of Human Ancestry



1. Java Man (Pithecanthropus) - In 1890, a skull cap, femur, and two molar teeth were grouped together as belonging to the same person. The skull is that of an ape, but the teeth and the femur bone of an human. What was not published was that they were found 45 feet apart from each other, along with many other bones of clearly apes, humans, and other animals. It was a grocery store of “parts� to construct any animal you wanted! Java man has since been reclassified as human.

2. Neanderthal Man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) - 1856, in Neanderthal, Germany, a skull cap and limb bones were found. It was grouped with a set of skeletons found all over Europe that had the following characteristics: prominent eyebrow ridges, low forehead, long narrow brain case, protruding upper jaw, a strong lower jaw lacking a chin. The overall skeletons were short, and stooped-over. Anthropologists believed it to be a “missing link� between man and ape because it seemed to have shuffled along when walking. However, 150 years later, it is now admitted that these skeletons were of people that suffered from rickets, and syphilis. Neanderthal Man was just a variation of the modern human kind with disease!

3. The Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus). In England, in 1912, a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw were grouped together, along with a tooth as a hoax to prove another so-called “missing link.� It was believed by the scientific world for over 40 years until tested for age, only to find that the tooth had been filed down to look human, and the jaw bone stained to look as old as the skull cap.

4. The Peking Man - all the “evidence� of this ape-man was lost in World War II, and is not available for examination.

5. The Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus) - an entire skeleton of an ape-man was constructed based upon a single tooth of a supposed “missing link.� The tooth was discovered to be of a rare pig found in Paraguay.

6. Lucy (Ramapithecus) - once widely accepted as the direct ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that this skeleton is merely an extinct type of orangutan - not an early human.



And they call all this "SCIENCE?"


Here is my source:
http://www.biblebc.com/CreationEvolution/c...lesson%2019.htm

You are a brave man. Prepare to be flamed and receive asinine remarks from mostly (not exclusively) atheistic evolutionists trying to derail the arguments presented. I predict the following will happen with this thread:
1) Subject will be changed or derailed.
2) Name-calling and/or flame-fest.
3) Asinine and snide remarks.
4) Ask you to provide a better theory.
5) Categorize you as an uneducated person who doesn't know a thing what you are talking about.
6) Never will any of the points presented discussed in detail.
7) Your evidence will be claimed as lies and already debunked without discussion.

But good luck.

You're absolutely right in this statement. Neither can be proven, so what one chooses to believe, is simply personal preference.




Again, completely personal preference.



This is the most uneducated statement I have heard all day. Many of the stories in the bible haven't even been founded as ever happening.
In the book of Exodus, When Moses supposedly parted the sea, it was misinterprated as the Red Sea, when in fact in the original Hebrew text it clearly states it's the Sea of Reeds. That's just one example. I understand what you're saying, but just because a book, written by many different men says something happened, doesn't make it so either.

Well, to me to fathom that one person, or entity, sat down and figured out how many cells go into a heart, and then that heart has to beat to take oxygenated blood to other organs that are made up of millions of cells and those organs take the oxygen out of the blood, and some other organs..........and there are how many different kinds of organisms living on this planet? But to be explained as on person just "deciding" on creating a creature that is so complex, makes me not just doubt, but out and out disbelieve.

Airika Good point one statement I missed, thank you.



Yet you believe we are the product of some cataclysmic explosion from absolutely nothing over billions of years becoming a single spec of life which beyond all odds created another which eventually became worms and fish then amphibians then reptiles and etc. That I doubt and disbelieve.

I want to address the watch theory that everyone always brings up.


I believe that the error in this statement is saying "A beautiful Swiss watch could not come from an exploding steel mill."


That's subjective.


Here's an example that you can do right now. Take a glass of water and fill it almost to the top. Now take a few drops of food coloring and drop them into the water.


You'll see something like this





Now if we were something that lived in the food coloring it would after time begin to become quite predicable. If you did it over and over again you would have a different perspective on the way the colors bloomed. And yet, its simply chaos at work. After carefully examining the physics and chemistry of the event you would realize that it seemed quite predicable and a sign of intelligence at work.

We the artist could be credited with a precise plan. But really there is no plan.

So since we are human and live on earth we have spent a great deal of time investigating ourselves and so we seem highly complex. We are highly complex to examine and understand. But really there is nothing to indicate to the vast reality of universe we aren't any more complicated than those drops of color are in the water.

We just can't see ourselves objectively. We compare ourselves to a complicated watch. But really there are just as many natural things happening in that water with the droplets as there are in the workings of a watch. We just aren't looking closely enough at those random things.

GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.
NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.
GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.
JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.
LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.
GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.
PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

*shakes head* I guess every word IS true.

I must say at the moment you have stumped me, on the God and discord part,
But in the old testament they were righteous because they did what God asked. In the new you become righteous by believing in Jesus as you savior. As for no one was or is righteous, we are sinners and that negates righteousness, from birth we are doomed, but Jesus saved us from that. It's in the context you must read more than a single verse.

I never said that I believed in the evolutionary theory either. But it does make more sense to me. Personally, I think that there is an explanation that will be discovered, and when it is, it will blow a hole in everyone's theories and/or beliefs.

LMAO!!...ok....I seriously could go on all day though my dear.....*MUAH*....nice meeting you. *waves and bids you luck on your thread*

Thankyou for stopping by.

That may be, but I will roll over in my grave when we create somthing from nothing. Its all faith... I will not burn or flame for your faith but I am just expressing mine, along with facts that support it.

see, I like reading others comments and beliefs, it amazes me how we all think and what we chose to adopt as our belief system. The human mind is an amazing thing, and to really try to understand our (human) race you have to study. And really, we never stop learning. One little thing one person may say could just be a comment that makes an intellectual connection to me, and that is fascinating to me. Maybe I'm weird, but I love to learn and think.

Okay in reply to this I got help.

The first thing that I started looking at was this post below. Looking at the discord issue: the person who posted the previous response tries to shred everything down into a nice concise statement ignoring any contextual issues. The Proverbs verses actually say "16...the Lord hates... 19 ... a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." If he is honest there are a couple of problems with the statements he makes. This is the one that I would use first.

It actually talks about dissension/ discord among brothers, there is a difference between "anyone who sows discord" and "a man who sows discord among brothers." If you look at the state of the current "Episcopal Church" Bishop Bob of Pittsburgh could probably be accused of "sowing discord" but he isn't "sowing discord among brothers" because there is such a disconnect between the faith of Bishop Bob and the faith of the current Presiding Bishop of the USA that there is no longer any kind of fellowship that is Godly between them. Therefore, while Bishop Bob is still civil with others and actually very gracious with those he disagrees with, he is actually effectively "sowing discord" because he is doing so in order to preserve God's truth. IE preserving truth is more important than avoiding conflict because in the end we don't just want to be unified, but instead unified in truth.

This is exactly the poster's problem comparing the verses in proverbs to the verses in Genesis. The verses in Gen. are the story of the Tower of Bable. God confuses man's language because men are trying to reach the sky and trying to present themselves as higher than God. Therefore, to preserve truth, God confuses the men who would seek to put themselves higher than God and to compete with Him for His glory. Therefore, the men who were building the tower were not in communion with God and therefore would not be considered part of God's family.

As far as the question of righteousness goes, a really good way to approach it is that the whole OT looks forward towards Jesus’ coming and although some people were counted as righteous, it was not because of their own merit it was because they devoted their lives towards God and through that devotion they accepted the forgiveness presented to us through Christ's atoning blood. The passages that he used in Rom. and 1 Jn. are actually in reference to our state when we do not have faith in Christ. If he actually was honest about the verses in 1 Jn. he would have noticed/stated that it actually includes the words "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." AKA we are unrighteous on our own merits but God makes us righteous out of mercy and grace, not our own abilities.

Here's my response from you're other post that is a duplicate of this:



Speciation has been observed in microbes and other creatures with extremely fast rates of production. Genetics emphatically supports common descent. The entire fossil record supports evolution. I have no idea what you're talking about the bible being proven in court to be true, that's a ridiculous statement, completely unsupported by the amount of historically and scientifically inaccurate passages of the bible. Lastly, evolution has nothing to do with religion.



Oh boy, trotting out thermodynamics again. Are you just cutting and pasting from creationist websites? The earth is not a closed system! We have this huge furnace called the sun constantly adding energy to the system. If energy couldn't overcome entropy nothing could happen in any sense. No work, no growth. The 2nd law refers to a system with no outside influence. The earth is not a closed system. Also note that order can result from the 2nd Law: " There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS — yes, predicts firmly — the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter.

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.

Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis.

Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law. "
Frank L. Lambert Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Occidental College

Learn what a theory means before trying to use it in a context you don't understand.




First read "Order out of Chaos" so you understand what you're talking about.

On Mendel, you just rewrote his laws entirely, here's what they really are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
And they completely support speciation.



You do know that there is no such thing as a transitional form per se? All creatures are what they are at any given time. We simply use species as label to help classifiy flora and fauna. Every creature is a transitional form. To actually address what you're dancing around though, you must realize that fossils have been found that represent say: sea to land, dinosaurs to birds, whales from land creatures back to water, early hominid species. This argument has so thoroughly been debunked I can't believe it's still brought up. Here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Read it.



Strata can be accurately dated using radiometric techniques. Palentologists, geologists and archeologists start with that. If a fossil has always only been found in a certain strata and that fossil is found in a strata on site then it can be used to give a rough date. Follow up analysis is always done if the item is date crucial though. Also, note, they are very well aware how strata are moved and eroded. Its something that they deal with on a daily basis. The flood never happened. There is no geologic evidence for it. Strata are not as ununiform as you would like to believe.



1. Java man is Homo Erectus and more complete specimens have been found since then. Nice trying to use a more than century old analysis, while ignoring modern analysis, to make your point.
2. No, you are wrong. The first near complete skeleton gave rise to the stooped posture. That was the sickly one. Discoveries since then, of which there are many, show them to be a different homo species that was quite robust and strong. Get you facts straight. No scientist is saying what you're purporting they are.
3. Piltdown was a hoax. It was found out. So? There was an attempted hoax not that long ago in China. that was found out too. You can't get away with it.
4. So peking man is missing. So what? There's far more fossils than that.
5. Again, this was the 1920's. And it was discovered to be false even then. Are you afraid to bring up any evidence after the 60's or what?
6. Lucy is an Australopithecus, an early human predecessor, not an extinct orangutan. Where do you get this stuff?

Nice smokescreen though, trying to bring up science that is mostly turn of the century stuff prior to the more sophisticated techniques we rely on today. Here's a list of the homonid fossils we'vr found and where they were found:
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/

So, before you post about science again, maybe you should read some. There has never been an actual scientific argument against evolution that has stood up to scrutiny and most arguments, like your own, aren't even scientfic to begin with.

I'm still waiting for abiogenesis, and if/when science accomplishes that... I'll look for my next "I'm waiting for" thing.

So fast that they remain microbes. Can you predict what microbes will "evolve" into anything else than microbes. Dont give the " why should they, they fit their current niche". Next question will be why did anything "evolve"? Oh yes.... time, a lot of imagination, natural selection and degrading mutations will give evolution. Evolutionary theory is structureless, and predicts virtually nothing - It adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape.


Really... you have no idea what the genetic make-up was of the universal common ancestor. Might as well say genetics emphatically supports common design.


Including DNA, RNA and proteins. These molecules reside in a highly ordered phases when functional, but degrade when energy is added. DNA, RNA and proteins are frozen away for future use in research or used immediately. Freezing means "taking away energy". Yes the earth is an open system, but it seems like energy added degrades molecules needed for life, unless there is a whole system already in place to utilize energy sufficiently; like the cell.
No amount of free energy will result in the formation of such a complex structure as the cell.

Just how complex is the question here.

This statement is fallacious. Do you suggest that the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of DNA molecules from ribose, and ACG and T? Misleading and just plain false. You can add all the energy in the universe into an open system and you still wont get DNA, nevermind a cell.
Exactly why there is not even a feasible hypothesis for abiogenesis.

Again this is misleading. The constituent elements of DNA, ACG and T are inherently unstable and degrade very easily.

Same can be said in your case, but i would rather not.


Australopithecus afarensis; Nope, Lucy was an ape


Now if i can only find that article i read about a Professor high up in human anthropology purportedly making up findings for the past 29 years to support his theory. I will find it. Big controversy.

Oh snap fearisgood!


DAYUM!

Just because it remains a microorganism doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. If there was absolute undeniable proof that a dinosaur evolved in to a bird, would you say "That's not evolution, because it's still an animal!"?



Who's saying that the big bang was the result of 'nothing'?




Where does this provide any implications of the theory of evolution? I also believe that there are many compounds which are favoured by entropy.



Entropy states that arrangements in which energy can be dispersed in a greater number of ways are favoured. It commonly tends to result in disorder, though that's not a requirement.



The Law of Biogenesis was used as an attempt to disprove creationism and states that complex organisms can not be formed from non-life. No conflict with abiogenesis there.



Changes like this are the result of an accumulation of smaller changes, and so can only be seen relative to the past.

Here's a pretty crap analogy: If you see someone every single day for 10 years, you don't notice any changes. But if you look at a photo of them from 10 years ago, you laugh at how different and probably stupid they look.



How do you explain antibiotic resistant bacteria and sickled-cell anemia?

The problem is there IS no undeniable proof.

Uh okay what do you think started the big bang?

I shall skip this one for you confuse me.

"complex organisms can not be formed from non-life" Okay so um where'd we get the complex organisms, even sigle celled organisms are complex.

Once again your posts are confusing.

Actually you would, on the scale of, OMG YOU HAVE A ZIT!

Your body adapts to viruses ya know like chicken pox? The stronger deadly virus imuntitys end up in your genetic code for future generations, you know like small pox immunity. But there are also the bad things that happen which change your dna causing harmful mutations.


Now for somthing different, religion is the belief in something we don't know to be true 100% Then Evolution is a religion. Sorry dude came on the tv saying religionists are stupid so I had to get that in.

Yes they adapted very nicely into a new niche
"Absolute undeniable proof". Please provide your version.


Implications for abiogenesis, a separate field from evolution, but ultimately naturalism demands it and so evolution also demands it in order for it not to be creationism...
There are many compound that are favored by entropy, if you believe this is sufficient for abiogenesis, thats your religion.

I fail to see how it supports abiogenesis. I would think it also disproves it...

Growth... evolution, not the same... I can see why you say it was a crap anology.


Horizontal gene transfer, meaning the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes already present.
Mutations. You will only find loss of functional enzymes that lead to antibiotic resistance, same with sickle-cell anemia. Do you propose bacteria to "degrade" into anything other than bacteria? Do you propose our common ancestors degraded into our present form?
Might as well call it an adaptive response.

That's not the point, reread what I said:

If there was absolute undeniable proof that a dinosaur evolved in to a bird, would you say "That's not evolution, because it's still an animal!"?

You seem to think that microorganisms haven't evolved because they're still 'just microorganisms'. Fact is microorganisms are a massive group, they encompass many different domains.



Are you being deliberately misleading? Do you mean the "Cambrian Explosion"?



Simpler precursors which are now extinct.



Have you got a source to explain how abiogenesis/evolution is inhibited by the law?



Do they?



I've never said it's 100% fact. If you read any of my posts from other threads you'd see that I've made that point clear myself.

Evolution is based on facts and evidence, therefore not a religion.



It still demonstrates how small unnoticeable changes can accumulate to produce a large change.



So from where did the first gene originate?



There are different mechanisms, that's one of them. Another includes alteration of binding sites.



As far as I can see degradation doesn't come in to it, see above.

You still havent provided such information.

Are you proposing "microorganism adaptation" to be the same as "dinosaur evolved into bird". Misleading dont you think? We have proof of the one, the other is still very much a nice story dressed up as science.


Now that we are on the Cambrian explosion, can you provide any reference as to when the earliest life forms supposedly started to take hold.
Really... how simple do you think? What do you think they looked like...biochemically?
I think you already mentioned it.
The Law of Biogenesis was used as an attempt to disprove creationism and states that complex organisms can not be formed from non-life.. Unless you propose molecules to be "life".

If you can answer where the first genes came from, have fun trying to explain...
A mutation of the gene causing the protein binding site not to recognize the antibiotic. Not exactly a new information added as a result of mutation.

Can I ask a question.


Why can it not be that Dinosaurs and birds are made from the same stuff and that there are different versions of animals on the planet?

Why must a Dinosaur have evolved into a bird?

Do you know what I mean?

Take humans and apes and their common ancestors. Why can't they just all exist independently of one another but be made from the same genetic material?

We don't see humans evolving from plants right? We don't say that our great single celled ancestors share a common link with the plant family do we?

So why are we grouping things together and saying they "evolved" from or "evolved into" rather than just say we are all part of the same group that is made up of X genetic material?

This is what I don't get.

Evolutionists don't necessarily believe the big bang theory, it has nothing to do with evolution actually. Evolution started when conditions changed to be able to support life which started in the sea as microscopic, single celled organisms, called simple organisms, they are not complex, but they contained genetic material. Just because we can't recreate this process in a science lab does not mean it could not have happened, humans give themselves way to much credit, we are talking 4 billion years ago. I'm sure you will bleat about biogenesis but minerals were leaching from the Earths magma and there could have been an organism in there somewhere. Some of the criteria for making these organisms may not be around any more. It proves squat that it could not happen. Anyway proving an organism is not my specialty. It is one thing we may not know but does not mean it couldn't have happened. Cyanobacteria and chlorophyll is central to creation, once photosynthesis started making oxygen the stage was set for major evolutionary development. Stromatolites are relics of a special type of cyanobacteria that converted sunlight to chlorophyll thus reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this process went on for another 2 billion years, only after that were conditions right for more complex life forms. Stromatolites are the oldest evidence of life on earth yet. Then it was only plants for another 2 billion years and they were only in the oceans. Protistans which appeared 1,200 million years ago are the successor to simple organisms, they were the complex organisms, some protistans used photosynthesis to provide food so they could be plants but some ate these plants so they could be considered animals. Once land plants such as Cooksonia took hold and created more oxygen and the ozone layer evolution exploded.
Creationists blow my mind, how could you possibly choose to believe some God who we can't even define somehow created everything including us? How did he do this? Wave his magic hand and go 'voila' a flea, 'voila' a palm tree, 'voila' a human? Instead of trying to tell Evolutionists and science how wrong it is maybe you can explain how God actually did it all in 6 days no less?

Why do we have to do that. I really wish that supporters of evolution would stop invoking the criticism of Creation by way of circumventing valid criticism of evolution.

You mock a Creationist for making up a ridiculous theory but look what you just wrote.


When it comes down to it your whole theory hinges on this statement:

'm sure you will bleat about biogenesis but minerals were leaching from the Earths magma and there could have been an organism in there somewhere.

How is that a scientific statement on which to rest an entire theory?

The point I was making is that we don't know everything, so I was saying that is was quite possible that organisms were in there. Who knows? How can anyone really know? I am not making any scientific statements, I am not a scientist coming up with evolution theories, I am putting forth what is general knowledge about creation of life in an evolutionary sense and saying we don't have all the answers but to disprove something like that by biogenesis is impossible. If you want to try and pretend to be scientists and think you know where a gene came from, go ahead. These evolution threads always come down to proof and there is none so my comment is really inconsequential. Maybe I should have worded it differently. Also I am not mocking anyone, I am genuinely asking how did God create animals and humans, according the old testament he basically went 'voila' then sat back and said how good it was, no mocking....

That is exactly why it is not science. Creationists might as well say "just because we can't recreate the six day creation in the lab, does not mean it could not have happened".

If , might, maybe, somewhere, sometime... Zero science in that statement. And no, with the present observations, there could not have been an organism in there somewhere, somehow. All current hypothesis have shown not to be feasible.

Are you appealing to an unknown science? Present observation of chemistry and biochemistry show that the formation of even the simplest cell present is not possible through natural means. You are going to have to start to appeal to unobserved organisms somewhere in the past and believe it is true. Just not science is it now...

Oh well, might as well say Evolutionists blow my mind, how could you possibly choose to believe some time somewhere, somehow an unknown mechanism gave rise to an unknown organism we can't define, and then everything living we observe today arose from that unknown entity? How did it happen, time a lot of luck? Was there a magic mechanism that is unobservable today, whereby this magical mechanism randomly waved its workings and 'voila' an incredibly complex cell, now go forth and mutate into all the complex organisms we observe today. Instead of trying to say Creationism is not science, show some evidence that abiogenesis did occur or concede that no theory on the origins of life is actually a science.

OK no theory on the origins of life is a science. It's a theory, are theories science? No. The starter of this topic states it quite clearly that unless a scientific fact is proven it is a theory. This whole thread is really null and void from the first post. One missing link that cannot be proven in todays world does not rule out evolution theory although your answers are good, great retort to my last paragraph. I never was trying to prove it as a science. My question was actually How did God make everything? How did he literally CREATE everything?

I'm interested in this as a follower of evolution not because I'm trying to disprove you, nor do I care if its science or not. Charles Darwin wrote: "if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammoniac and phosphoric salts, light, heat and electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." And from my book on Space: In 1953 2 American chemists Miller and Urey tried to simulate some of the features of this ancient environment and by the end of the experiment they had a deep red solution, rich in large organic molecules including amino acids, the basic building blocks of life. A biologist working for NASA succeeded in synthesizing the basic ingredients of the DNA molecule. Scientists agree that after millions of years a particular configuration of molecules emerged that was able to replicate itself. Still more molecules appeared with growing numbers of the attributes we now associate with living matter. Ultimately the first tiny living thing formed out of countless successive synthesis of other molecules. Its progeny will have included slight mutations, different types of living organism which if successful in the battle for survival spawned others of its own kind. The 4000 million year story of evolution, which culminated in the emergence of mankind, had finally begun.
These are explanations that interpret the beginnings of 'life as we know it'. Besides sounds like science to me, but what do I know.........

So why not put the philosophies of origins in the philosophy class and keep the science in he science class.


The Miller-Urey only proved that some of the amino acids can be formed naturally under reducing conditions. Cysteiene is an amino acid where there is no natural mechanism of formation. This alone poses huge problems.

Chemists are able to synthesize all kinds of molecules. Whether they can be formed as a result of natural processes is an entirely different story.

They can agree all they want, they just dont know how it happened. Unscientific statement by scientists if you ask me.

So goes the fairytale. If you want to believe it, thats your religion.

People follow science like a religion. It is like "if a scientist says so then it must be so", without questioning it. Fact is that many scientists will say anything to support their philosophy and history will show this. There are two main philosophies concerning the origins of life, creationism and naturalism. Naturalism is very appealing as it does not require accountability to a higher being. However it does provide nice theories and stories.

Okay show me where we have a single slow change in animals to something else, show me where we know that a paramecium came from a rock or ooze of protein that suddenly changed into a dna sequence.

Then show me what they believe but do not know to be true, which is religion, or faith whichever you call it.

And by that you mean a cell without an organelle, a cell without a cell wall, somthing missing something that is vital to survival.

Are you kidding me? That point obviously went way over your head.

You said:
So fast that they remain microbes. Can you predict what microbes will "evolve" into anything else than microbes.

Now, microorganisms represent a massive range of different organisms, from all different domains. Yet you sound like you're saying "It didn't evolve, because it's still a microorganism"; which is absurd.

If a dinosaur evolved in to a bird, would you say "It didn't evolve, because it's still an animal"?



The Cambrian Explosion and origins of life are unrelated. Cyanobacteria can be dated to ~3.8bya.



First of all, that doesn't inhibit anything because it's only applicable to complex organisms.

Second, I was referring to the Second law of thermodynamics, not biogenetics.



Okay, define "information".



Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes.

Here's information on the origin of cells. Click.

Let's see how far over my head it went.
You said: Speciation has been observed in microbes and other creatures with extremely fast rates of production. Which by the way has also been observed in species with slower rates of production, like the hawthorn fly.
Then i said: So fast that they remain microbes. Can you predict what microbes will "evolve" into anything else than microbes. I might as well have said "Can you predict the hawthorn fly evolving into anything other than a fly".
Then you throw in the following: Just because it remains a microorganism doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. If there was absolute undeniable proof that a dinosaur evolved in to a bird, would you say "That's not evolution, because it's still an animal!"?.
Which i guess i should have said: No if there was absolute undeniable proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, then i ill say: Great dinosaurs evolved into a bird, end of story. Dinosaur to bird evolution is from one class to another (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) I think you wont find examples of evolution from one genus to another or the formation of a new family in the case of bacteria or any other organism for that matter. We observe speciation, not "genusification", "familification" etc... So in essence you are comparing apples and oranges here. Misleading don't you think?
Please explain if you are still over my head, which is entirely possible.

Can you give an example of where microorganisms evolved into a separate "class" as in your dinosaur to bird evolution example?

And creationists... absurd
I also fail to see how the SLoT supports abiogenesis.

Looking at the first hypothetical common ancestor, how do you think genes of entirely complex systems were added to provide all the biological systems we observe today with the necessary information to function. Time and a lot of imagination i would imagine.

So goes the philosophy.

Unfortunatelatey i dont have access to that journal, but browsing around i found some interesting article titles.

1) Genomic reduction and evolution of novel genetic membranes and protein-targeting machinery in eukaryote-eukaryote chimaeras (meta-algae)
2) Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution
3) Genomes at the interface between bacteria and organelles

Guess which journal these beauties are published: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Guess they are still philosophying about origins. Teach philosophy in philosophy class.

Exactly!

Then it appears to be a misunderstanding. A microorganism is just that, an organism which is microscopic in size; it encompasses a vast number of different organisms from all of the kingdoms. To say "when will they evolve to be anything other than microorganisms" seems illogical to me because what you're describing is a characteristic. It's like asking when an animal is going to evolve seven ears. It's not the same as asking when a hawthorn fly is going to evolve to the point it's no longer a fly, because that's a taxonomic classification.

I didn't mean for this to be drawn out for so long, it was just an observation. A pretty irrelevant one at that.



Is there any real requirement for it to?



It's free to access, just a problem with the links I think. Here it is again, Link. If it still doesn't work the Paper title is "Cell evolution and earth history: stasis and revolution". It's got some interesting information, incl. evidence of eukaroytes evolving from prokaryotes.



Abiogenesis is still very much a work in progress, no one is claiming to have all of the answers.

Wow you are an ignoramus, the big bang did not happen out of nothing. This thread should be closed as it is ridiculous and there are 3 other ones on the same subject at this very moment.

If it didn't happen from nothing what did cause it? Ridculous? No THIS IS UNEXPLAINED!!!! (sorry 300 joke)And well screw those other boards mines better!

-edit-

I had a question, but don't want to take this in another direction. It's not my field of interest.

Ask anyway.

I have personal beliefs, based on my own experiences in life, that tell me there is more than meets the eye to this Universe. I must conclude, by extrapolation, that certain "rare" variations in the human experience point to what I call the other world. For all I know, the whole thing is wrapped up under the guise of a divine intelligence or Being.

Nonetheless, I also know when I need a doctor, it's not a witch doctor, but someone with scientific training. So, I put a lot of stock in the pursuit of science. It demands specialists who do not always cross-talk with other disciplines. It is forever a work in progress.

I will pursue one or two other lines of thought, later.

I don't know where your source got their information, but it matches only poorly with what I have read regarding evolution. This sounds more like pseudoscience.

Just one thought: you're as likely to get good information about evolution from a creationist as you are to get good information about creationism from an evolutionary biologist. These two areas do not overlap. One deals with things that are observable, while the other deals with things that aren't. One is science; the other is religion. Each produces its best results when it is smart enough to remember what it is an expert in and stays out of areas it knows nothing about.
--DJS

I am about to complete a doctorate in forest biometry, a field whose findings tend strongly to support evolution. Guess what the full name of my degree will be:

Doctor of PHILOSOPHY in Forest Biometry.

Maybe you should research what words like "Philosophy" and "Theory" actually mean when used by scientists.

--DJS

P.S.: I have never taken even ONE course in philosophy.

Why would you post this in the science section? Put this in spirituality vs skepticism next time, it's not science.

Please correct me if im wrong but i have never seen a creationist actualy give any evidence for creationism. All ive ever seen is them trying to make others look wrong but not make themselves right.

I haven’t the time nor expertise to address all the points put forth by everyone, but I would like to address a few of the earliest posts by Capeo and a few others. Unlike Dark Arc, however, I will not avoid using biblical arguments, if they seem appropriate. When Darwinists demand that you give arguments without using the Bible, they are trying to stack the deck. They’re saying “Okay you can fight the duel. You just can’t have any bullets in your gun.”

Airika says:
This is the most uneducated statement I have heard all day. Many of the stories in the bible haven't even been founded as ever happening. In the book of Exodus, When Moses supposedly parted the sea, it was misinterprated as the Red Sea, when in fact in the original Hebrew text it clearly states it's the Sea of Reeds. That's just one example. I understand what you're saying, but just because a book, written by many different men says something happened, doesn't make it so either.

The statement regarding the Red Sea is a good example of apparent Bible contradictions that are not contradictions at all, when one understands what is written. Good Bible commentaries will tell you that the Red Sea and the Sea of Reeds are just different names for the same body of water. The Hebrews called it the Sea of Reeds or bulrushes; to the Greeks it was known as the Red Sea, possibly because of the red mountains on the western shore or the red coral found in it.

As for the comment about “Many of the stories in the bible haven't even been founded as ever happening,” to my knowledge there has never been a discovery proving that anything in the Bible is not true. In fact, time and again, archeological discoveries are made that affirm something found in the Bible. The Bible has amazing cohesiveness in history, doctrine, etc. for a book written over many centuries by a diverse group of authors.

Truethat says:
“A beautiful Swiss watch could not come from an exploding steel mill” and then says this is subjective. It is not. It is an objective statement of fact. It is something that could be demonstrated by repeated experimentation -- although I’m sure no one wants to go around exploding steel mills just to prove a point. (The only way one would find a Swiss watch in an exploded steel mill is if it came off of someone’s wrist.)

His analogy to the food coloring in the way is flawed. When you put a drop of dye in water, the dye spreads out uniformly through the water until a state of equilibrium is reached -- a simple principle of physics. It takes no creative power (other than that which God has already put forth when he created physics) to get the dye to spread through the water. It may be random, perhaps, but it is not chaotic, because each water and dye molecule is obeying those laws of physics as they bump into one another.

It clearly takes creative power -- intelligent input -- to first design a watch, then make the watch pieces (to say nothing of making the machines that make the pieces), then assemble them in the correct sequence and relationship to one another in order to make a functional mechanism. An explosion has no creative power.

Humans -- and all life -- are vastly more complex than either a simple drop of dye in water or a Swiss watch. Read about the amazing chemical chain reaction that must occur every nanosecond to make sight possible or the blood clotting cascade that keeps us from bleeding to deat