The Scientific Case Against Evolution

Jesus - it was a tough campaign

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.  

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many “transitional” forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct “kinds” of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.” Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true “vertical” evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new “basic kind.”

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques”2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct “kind” to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

Translation: “There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically.” Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller’s famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its “hard parts” on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate — that is, the first fish— with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn’t change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees — fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner — new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any “vertical changes” in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.  

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee “similarity,” noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn’t they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian “proofs.”

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called “junk DNA” in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called “pseudogenes.”16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled “pseudogenes,” have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled “vestigial organs” in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.  

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy — also known as the second law of thermodynamics — stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go “downhill,” as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the “first law”), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is “independent of details of models.” Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists — that is, they insist that there are no “vitalist” forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an “open system,” with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski’s impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is “natural processes’ ability to increase complexity” by noting what he calls a “flaw” in “the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics.” And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not “organizing” mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution is Religion — Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and “new age” evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism — the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a labo ratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal — without demonstration — to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30

Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists’ tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.” It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the “liberal” movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a “religion without revelation” and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.”34 Then he went on to say that: “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct something to take its place.”35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Evolution Cruncher, The Scientific Case Against Evolution

33 Comments on “The Scientific Case Against Evolution”


  1. Here is the evolution ‘trap’ that attempts to wrap the mind up with false logic:

    Forget nature, let’s talk Society. According to Society, Evolution is everywhere! One man comes up with an idea, this evolves into a plan, then after many gradual steps, you have a billion dollar industry known as Walmart or Microsoft. This is why people think evolution is real. Because they can see it, not in Nature so much as Society.

    For that matter, the creationist argument runs along the same lines and have the same potential disaster. Say, “look at all the design in nature? Don’t you think there’s a creator?”

    At this point, when I look around I see this: a computer, a speaker, a lamp, a desk, a window, a stapler, etc. Yes, all designs, and yes, all designed. Not by God, but by HUMAN.

    Now, you can take the ontological argument and say that if it’s built by humans, then since humans have their origins with God, then even though it appears as if humans built it, it really is God. The problem with this logic is that it could be Satan or Thor just as easily as it can be God.

    The point of greatest importance is this: There can be only one true origin. It is impossible for there to be 2 origins, meaning, in Christianity, either Satan came from God, or God from Satan. It’s impossible for their to be two absolute origins, since one would have to have created the other.

    So, all that it really matters is how you see this origin. Is it an incompassionate black-hole of space? Is it your mom? Is it Nature? Is it God or some other kind of being, or is it simply the absolute origin? (since labelling it what it is not is unscientific and misleading).

    So regardless of whether or not it is creation or evolution, the point is everything came from one origin, and whether this was intentional, or it evolved (intentional or non-intentional) there still is meaning. There is an origin, and things come from this origin. After that, any human would know there’s at least a small fraction of reason and free will, which is both a blessing and a curse, since it is the cause of all good things, as well as all bad things.

    I like your style….

  2. Liza Says:

    This topic is quite trendy in the net right now. What do you pay attention to while choosing what to write about?

  3. Spencer Says:

    3 irrefutable points:

    1) Living things come from other living things and traits are passed down.

    No proof for evolution

    2) There are many species on the planet today, they show incredible diversity and complexity.

    No proof for evolution

    3) The fossil record shows that such diversity and complexity was not always present but increased over time.

    No it doesn’t, the fossil record fails to show a single instance of evolution other than within “kinds.”
    No transitional fossils.
    Not a single shred of evidence for evolution from one species to another exists in any textbook or university.

    What else explains this except for evolution?
    Explains what?
    That you’ve failed to support the fairy tale of evolution ever having been observed?

  4. Spencer Says:

    So, you obviously agree with points 1 and 2
    yet you comletely missed point 3

    I never said the fossil record proves evolution, I said it shows that the complexity of organisms has increased over time.
    Would you care to disprove that for me?

    First give me a solid instance of this “complexity of organisms has increased over time.”
    Then tie it to an evolutionary example.
    Give me your best example (only one and make it your best)and if I cannot refute it from science then I’ll admit that your best has won, but if I can refute it from science then you must admit that your best has failed…fair enough?

  5. Spencer Says:

    Ok, this is really REALLY simple. Simpler and less diverse fossils are found DEEPER in the earth. The more complex fossils are found in shallower layers. since the layers form over time, we cna reasonably conclude that they got more complex. This, in combination with my first 2 points provides a solid case for evolution.

    What is even harder for you or any evolutionist is to show me the evidence and not just a “reasonable conclusion.” I am all about facts and science and will discard theory until proven.

  6. Spencer Says:

    If this is flawed then point it out. There are less complicated fossils deeper in the earth. They get more complicated and divierse towards the surface. Care to refute this?

    Look I’m demanding evidence and you keep failing to provide any. Your comprehension is devoid of due process.
    One of the most disturbing attitudes of most evolutionists is their insistence on naturalism as the premise for explaining everything from the origin of the cosmos to the origin of the human soul. The fact is that total naturalism is quite devoid of real explanatory power for almost anything. Furthermore, for anything to be considered scientifically true, it has to be something that can be duplicated. If evolution were true, wouldn’t scientists be able to recreate the sequence of change that transformed monkeys into humans? The DNA pattern has to be in a specific sequence for each species. In humans, there are three billion bits (called nucleotides) of information which fall into a very precise DNA sequence. And this DNA sequence cannot, and does not, rearrange itself to create something new. DNA does not have the independent capacity to add nucleotides at will. Once a given program is established, it remains fixed in its basic sequence. So in terms of pure science, “evolution science” appears to be a contradiction—an oxymoron. Evolution is unpredictable and arbitrary, while science is systematic—based on a preexisting system. And in a broader sense, it does not seem the universe could have created itself arbitrarily and still be completely, totally, and in every regard, systematic.

    The fact is that virtually every geological formation shows by its fossils and by its very structure that it must have been deposited very rapidly–indeed catastrophically. Although individual formations in a vertical column may be separated from each other by one or more time gaps, there are no worldwide time gaps. That fact can only be explained by a worldwide cataclysm, primarily hydraulic in nature.
    http://www.icr.org/article/willful-ignorance/

    But what supporting evidence do we really have? Why are we so quick to believe that a one-of-a-kind, hunch-backed skeleton 400,000 years old is suddenly the “missing link”? A few years after this discovery, some different fossils—supposedly one million years old—were found in another part of the world and were called the “missing link.” Is there a link between these two links? And where are all of the other missing links? Where is the chain of evidence that shows how the unique parts of creatures evolved? How did the eye develop? How did we get a heart, stomach, other organs, teeth, hearing, smell, nerves, muscles, bones, and skin all in one nice, neat package?
    http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-real-science-or-nonsense/

    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
    The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

    We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about.Evolutionist and author Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.
    http://www.icr.org/article/455/

    The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics
    Similarities—whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else—are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

    The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

    Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Commenting on a few of the numerous anomalous results in the genetic story, Dr. Roger Lewin summarizes the situation thus, as noted in Part I of this series:
    http://www.icr.org/article/scientific-case-against-evolution-summary-part-2/

    “Evolutionary Faith” might well be the title of the elaborate exhibitions in the nation’s famed Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. In many beautiful displays, the evolution of the earth and its inhabitants is treated as axiomatic with its histories laid out in impressive diorama and narrative accounts. Yet in all these exhibits, it is impossible to find one single evidence of real evolution! Evolution is apparently a non-theistic religious faith, which a gullible citizenry is expected to believe simply because the “scientists” say so.
    http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-at-smithsonian/

    As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially “religious” character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they believe it! “Science”, however, is not supposed to be something one “believes”. Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as “part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training”. 1 A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said that “belief in the theory of evolution” was “exactly parallel to belief in special creation,”with evolution merely “a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature”. 2 G.H. Harper calls it a “metaphysical belief”. 3
    http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science/

  7. Spencer Says:

    You constantly change the subject during our debates, im not moving on to other points until this one is resolved. Otherwise, we well never get anywhere. MY point is simple really, i dont know how much clearer i can make this, SIMPLE FOSSILS ON BOTTOM, COMPLICATED FOSSILS ON TOP. Even most creationists will admit to this. If you use the flood as an explanation for the presence of these fossils, you must provide an explanation as to how they became this organized.

    Error of ommission… All of the data points to a cataclysmic destruction. But thats a story for another time.Evolutionists have “Physics Envy.” They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases. It’s not. The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact—no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics. I think this is what the public discerns—that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.
    Another evolutionist makes an interesting admission. He says: “Contrary to their public image, scientists are normal, flawed human beings.” They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone.

  8. Spencer Says:

    So…. the flood has empirical evidence now?

    Only a small fraction.

  9. Spencer Says:

    id like to see this “evidence”

  10. Spencer Says:

    Also, back to my original point, do you deny that the mroe complicated fossils are found on the upper layers?

    To make this more understandable, let’s look at the Grand Canyon. Steven Austin, in his book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, claims the Canyon rocks represent those which were deposited during the rising waters phase of the Flood The “Late Flood”, or receding water rock deposits, are the Mesozoic sediments.
    It is interesting to note that all the dinosaur fossils, including the mass graves, are Mesozoic in age. This means that all the dinosaurs died in the receding water phase of the flood.
    .

  11. Spencer Says:

    That makes 3 deleted comments in this thread. You really don’t want to answer this do you? I’m beginnign to think you’re cornered. Of course, you can wlasy prve me wrong. Just answer me.
    Do you deny that the fossils found on higher layers are more complex and diverse than the fossils found in deeper layers?
    It’s a yes or no question and I’m sure you know whether or not you believe something. you always seem so confident in your case too. So whats the problem?

    If Grandpa is buried on top of a hamster does that make Grandpa his relative?
    Where are these alleged transitionals that you have? WHere is this invisible evidence?

    • Spencer Says:

      Again, you avoid a simple yes and no question.
      My question still stands, and ill answer yours while I’m waiting.

      A) Grandpa is distantly related to the hamster.

      B) All fossils are transitional fossils as every species is a transitional phase between other species. The reason we don’t have a full gradient of fossils is the rare conditions that fossils form under. Not everything fossilizes.

      Now, I’ll ask you for the 4th time. All you have to do is say YES or NO.
      DO you deny that fossils increase in complexity in shallower layers of the earth?

      I know that there are no transitional fossils in the Natural museums.
      I don’t have the empirical evidence for change other than between kinds, and I am not a Geologist so my answer stands.If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE! The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up “transitionals” because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there.Knowing what we do about the universe today, only a madman would say that there is no God. Man has found that the universe works more accurately than any clock or watch he has been? able to make. And there is no watch running around that just happened some watchmaker made it. The universe
      that is timed more accurately than a watch tells us that there is a universe-maker. And 150 years ago the fool begins to appear on the scene.
      Is evolutiona fact? The answer is clear Evolution has not been proven in the scientific community to be considered fact Further, by true scientific standards,is evolution even a theory? A scientific theory is defined as a theory that explains observations
      scientific theories must be falsifiable. What this means is that in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove it either right? or wrong. Without putting thetheory to a test, one can never prove it

      • Spencer Says:

        For the 5th time, DO YOU deny that there are more complicated fossils near the earth’s surface and less complicated fossils deeper in the earth? And why are you so intent on avoiding this question?

        For the fifth time … there are zero transisitonal fossils that demonstrate macroevolution. And a hamster buried underneath your grandpa doesnt mean the hamster is related to him. Thats imagination and sleight of hand. Evolution exists only in the mind.

  12. Spencer Says:

    Did i say i was talking about transitional fossils? NO.
    Please, read what I am typing.
    Different animal fossils are found in different layers. We don’t find human remains buried with dinosaurs. Regardless of transitional fossils, there are more complex fossils near the surface of the earth than there are deeper down. What does that have to do at all with transitional fossils?

    We have discovered human and dinosaur tracks together.
    http://www.rae.org/paluxy.html – for a single example.
    What do complex fossils have to do with transitional fossils?

  13. Berny Says:

    The Paluxy tracks do not show humans and dinosaurs together, they show two different types of dinosaurs. Get your story straight. That “evidence” was debunked ages ago by palaeontologists. Even Answers in Genesis warns against using this argument.
    Spencer is correct and you are wrong. All fossils are transitional forms. Further more, the most compelling evidence for evolution is not the fossil record but the genetic record. Educate yourself and pick up a book other than the Bible.

    Thanks for the lecture thought you might like this.
    • All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been “discarded” and is considered a “phantom” and “illusion” because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then we’ve got trouble. Science means “to know” and “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc.” It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don’t “know.” Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests. World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.”
    • Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as many evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.
    • Whale – For example, it claims “legged whales”. There is no such thing as vestigial legs in whales and anyone who tells you that, is either lying, or is ignorant of their whale anatomy and the question remains, for how long will you fools use outdated information, that has been refuted time and time again? You obviously do not know that this bone is always found in the same gender of whale and not in both genders.
    Why? That bone is not a vestigial leg. Muscles attach to that bone and to be polite and avoid vulgarity, it is used in the reproductive process of whales. I.e., No bone, no baby whales. So what did they do before? They walked, but couldn’t reproduce and yet, they somehow evolved?
    • Now, if they want to keep looking for your magic monkeys, that’s fine. But do not lie and claim that “evolution is a fact of science” when it is no such thing and do not lie and claim that there is a “mountain of evidence” when that is not true. And do not lie and claim that evolution makes predictions based on the evidence, when it does the reverse. It is a belief and all data is interpreted within that belief, even though there is no support for it. And do not lie and claim that Intelligent Design does not make scientific predictions, when it does and the support for them is there. And do not lie and claim that Darwin based his conclusions on the evidence, when Darwin himself said that he didn’t have it and hoped that it would one day be found. Intelligent Design predicts that if ID is true, then we should see sudden appearance of various kinds and that is what we see. Sudden appearance with no evolution into anything else, other than what it appeared as, with some variations (variety of canidae, for example). Their own people tell you that.

    Speciation
    Abiogenesis
    • Evolutionists are also hypocrites. They claim that when it comes to evolution, they don’t have to address abiogenesis and at the same time, when you bring up ID, they demand that you prove that God created. (:
    • The fact is, that no model of evolution is scientific in any sense. None can be tested, because we cannot go back and see history and these events cannot be studied in a lab. Evolution is entirely out of reach for the scientific method. So what we are left with, is observing the results. In their case, you are also bound to show what they claim. That it is evolution that got us where we are and they cannot show that to anyone. ID however, predicts that we should see lots of complex forms without finding a clear and directional progress from one kind to another. And thus far, that is what we have.
    Genetics
    • Oooo, dead-end there, I’m afraid. Genetics doesn’t support evolution either. You evolutionists like to clutch at real science and try to graft onto evolution, but all you can do is muck up the real science. Genetics was discovered by a Catholic monk. It is real science — with real limitations. It can not be forced to account for change from one species to another. Thousands of generations of really pissed-off fruit flies can attest to that.
    Arguments For Design
    Teleological Argument.
    • We see much design in the world. Something designed points to a designer. The universe is very fined tuned for life. This could not be by accident but design. This is the number one reason why people say they believe in God.
    Primer Mover Argument
    • The world is in motion. Someone must have started the motion. This is similar to the next argument.
    First Cause Argument
    • The world has cause and effect sequences. There must be an efficient first cause for everything in the world.
    The Perfection or Ontological argument. If there is something good and true, there must be something truest or perfect from which everything comes which must be God.

    • The Moral argument. Humans know right from wrong. Animals do not. Where does this morality come from, God.

    • The miracles argument. Miracles show there must be a God.

    • The experience argument. I have experienced God’s power, he must exist. Similar to this is the next one.

    • The consoling argument. I believe because it makes me feel better.

    • Pascal’s Wager Argument
    Thermodynamics
    • “One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more order.” – Roger Lewin (1982)
    • “But an answer can readily be given to the question, ‘Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?’. Not yet.” – Frank Greco (1982)
    • These people rant on about “open system vs closed system”, but the reality is, that it is the same system and the fact is that in the universe, there is no such thing as a closed system, free from any interference and the fact is, that it would take high, ordered energy to make happen what they claim. Energy that has a plan! And a plan speaks of a design and intelligence. These people are left with the option of ascribing intelligent design to the universe itself! Ridiculous! So they go on and preach what they want. But their own people tell them it can’t happen! The comical part, is that they know it, they admit it and yet, they still believe it did and does.

    • Evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when you suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

    • What the theory of evolution posits is an accidental, law-of-the-jungle, survival-of-the-fittest mechanism for creating new species-as indicated in the title of Darwin’s book,” The Origin of Species”. Leave aside the thornier issues, like how the accidental process that gave us opposable thumbs could produce a moral sense and consciousness of mortality. Lets consider just the basic steps of evolution.
    1.Random mutation of desirable attributes(highly implausable)
    2.Natural selection weeding out the “less fot” animals (pointless tautology)
    3.leading to the creation of new species (No evidence after 150 years of searching
    • Why do you confess evolutionism? Is it just ENTIRELY superstition on your part? Do you have literally NO basis for your belief other than some false correlation between a white coat without test equipment and the Truth?

    • I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those changes in the first place. Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don’t “know.” Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science .Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.
    • Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
    • The fact is, evolution fails miserably and in this regard there is zero evidence for macroevolution, which is why evolutionists never present any.
    • Claims are not proof.
    • Note folks, they CLAIM that macroevolution has been observed, but they SHOW YOU microevolution. 🙂
    • And they should not claim to be presenting evidence, when all they have is the claim that “many micro step lead to macro”, which is a load of crap that they cannot prove and they know it! Then they have the gall , after claiming that there is “a mountain of evidence” to demand that I “show the mechanism that would prevent it from happening”. These people are stupid enough to actually believe that demanding that someone prove it did not happen, is the same as proving that it did happen! (:
    • These people KEEP CLAIMING to have “A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE” and yet, ALL we see from them, is criticism, insults and claims to have what they don’t have and attacks on ID. The really funny part is, that you fools always end up criticizing ID, claiming that it makes no predictions and only criticizes evolution!
    • Evolution and evolutionists are absolute, total frauds. All they (and you) can do is make snide remarks and run and hide from *EVER* providing one ounce of evidence for your faith that you call “science”. Scientific unfairness of Evolution
    • Describe a line of evolving creatures that evolve from a small land mammal into a whale. I don’t expect you to provide evidence (you don’t have any), just tell me how it *could* happen.

    Famous Creation Scientists
    • British physicist Paul Davies writes in his book Superforce, “The laws [of physics] …seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design…The universe must have a purpose.” In his book The Cosmic Blueprint he states, “[I see] powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.”
    • Since the discovery of the expansion of the universe, Scientists realize the universe had a beginning. How did the beginning begin? Some astronomers turned to God. Astronomer Robert Jastrow states, “The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
    Famous Evolutionists, their beliefs, and their mistakes
    • Although believers in God don’t need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said,” Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” This is why there is mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.
    • And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?
    • Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
    • Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man!
    • Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.” I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)
    • Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”

    • Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary…thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.” He went on to say, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He also said, “Evolution is ‘anti-science.'” And so it is.

    • This isn’t science , its treating doubts about evolution as religious heresy. Darwinism, as philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski says, is “the last of the great 19th century mystery religions.” The only reason a lot of Christians reject evolution is that we are taught to abjure big fat lies. You can look it up-we have an entire commandment about the importance of not lying.

    • World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently died), with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen Rose, Texas, “…all this makes evolution impossible.” And so it does.
    • have assumed that the readers here are familiar with all the world famous scientists I have quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.
    • I don’t have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
    • Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….”
    • Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man!”Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.'”
    (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
    • “Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
    • “Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. …In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional
    interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny.”
    (Fortey, P. L., “Neontological Analysis Versus Paleontological Stores,” 1982, p. 120-121)
    • “Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. …The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories.” (Kitts, David B., “Search for the Holy Transformation,” review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P.Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
    • “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact. – Dr. T. N. Tahmisian
    • “…we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our ‘a priori’ adherence to material causes to create a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” – Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 31
    • “Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” – Scott C. Todd
    • The greatest scientific philosopher of all time, Dr. Karl Popper, said that evolution is not a law, nor a theory and that it doesn’t even rise to the level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more than a metaphysical research program and he was right. And it was he who stressed that falsifiability is necessary for genuine science.
    • “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition…” – Steven M. Stanley 1979a
    • “As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly…” – Tom Kemp 1985a

    • “Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. …The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories.” (Kitts, David B., “Search for the Holy Transformation,” review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
    • “Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.'” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
    • “Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. …If any event in life’s history resembles man’s creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when
    • multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell.” (Bengtson, Stefan, “The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle,” Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), pp. 765-766)
    • If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)

    • It’s interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund the Scopes Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can legally be taught in Tennessee and that’s unfair. Well, now they are on the inside, and demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued against. When a famous politician asked the ACLU to support his bill in the Indiana House of Representatives that required Indiana schools to teach scientific creation and evolution equally, they refused to support that bill! Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought various ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their own minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith as they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat – that isn’t there.
    • Just to clean the palate of a century of evolutionists’ browbeating everyone into saying evolution is a FACT and we’ll see you in court if you criticize the official state religion, we begin with a story from the late Colin Patterson, respected paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London. Like Diogenes searching for one honest man, Patterson was on a quest to find someone who could tell him-as he put it-“anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true”. Patterson said,” I tried that question on the geology staff at the field museum of natural history, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time”.
    • Liberals’ Creation Myth is Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Which is about one notch above Scientology in Scientific rigor. It’s a make believe story based on a theory that is tautology, with no proof in the Scientists laboratory or in the fossil record-and that’s after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldnt still be talking about it butfor the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.

    The problem with the Evolutionary Model
    • Evolution isn’t even a science let alone a theory..
    Dishonest, yet clever, arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics either. Interestingly, the First Law of Thermodynamics actually proves that God has always existed. Remember that this law means something could not come from nothing. Science has proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would never have been a universe. Since something can never come from nothing, God had to always exist! Unwittingly, science has proven God’s existence, while at the same time disproving evolution. It has been said that evolutionists are their own worst enemies. The bitter disagreements between scientists of competing or disagreeing disciplines of evolution often provide many of the proofs cited by those disagreeing with the overall theory. In fact, evolutionists questioning evolution is more significant than many would suggest.

    • By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable.” What this means is that in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove it either right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can never prove it—either true or false! For example, one could observe an orange sunset, and then theorize that the sun is always orange. There exists a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid theory. Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be considered a valid theory. In this case, if one continues to watch the sky, they will see changes in its color. If the same standards are applied to the theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test. Because there have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the first condition is not met. Those who support this theory state that most major evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable. Recall the logical fallacies discussed at many philosophic websites. When something is dated very old to prove a point, we are dealing with what is called chronological snobbery. Make no mistake, evolutionists know that they are not dealing with either a scientific fact or theory, and must resort to logical fallacies to validate their claims. This is best described by Dr. Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist: “His [Darwin’s] general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct FACTUAL support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a fact. It is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it is nothing more than a “highly speculative hypothesis.” Can you imagine something so contested, even by those who profess to believe it, taught in schools as fact? It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how exactly is it scientific?

  14. Spencer Says:

    So, my point still stands, will you address my point and say you accept or deny that less complicated fossils are found deeper in the earth? Or will you just keep taking the shotgun approach to debate and post way more than i can refute on a post to post basis and declare victory?

    All fossils found, regardless of depth were never transitionals. I dont know how much clearer I could be?

    • Spencer Says:

      I never said transitional fossils. Why do you think I’m talking about transitional fossils?

      Here:
      If we dig into the earth to a depth of x
      the fossils will be more complicated than those found at a depth of 2x.

      Is that clearer?
      I am NOT talking transitional fossils, YOU are.

      The fossil record supports the flood.
      Creationists and evolutionists interpret the geological layers differently because of our different axioms. Evolutionists interpret the sequence of layers as a sequence of ages with different types of creatures; creationists interpret them as a sequence of burial by a global flood and its after-effects. This makes better sense of phenomena such as ‘living fossils’ and finding creatures such as the coelacanth, which isn’t found in rocks ‘dated’ younger than 70 million years.

      • Spencer Says:

        So the flood organized the fossils by complexity? Impressive

        “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” (Fossils and Evolution, Dr TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999)

        “[There is not] enough evidence from fossil material to take theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” New Scientist August 1972 p 259

  15. Spencer Says:

    Id like to use the argument from our other discussion here. Could anything at all convince you evolution is real?

    Use the argument where Spencer?
    I figured you were logging all of this-I am not stupid.
    I look forward to the exposure actually.
    Just dont edit my words and you can use anything you want.
    The only thing that could convince me that Evolution is true is one single ounce of proof.
    You see, someone telling me that they crossed a ten mile canyon is one thing.
    But telling me that crossing that canyon entailed stepping over small mounds that have since eroded behind them is not believable.
    Dont ask me for the evidence in those mounds because they have long since eroded. Just believe me when I tell you how I got here even though youve never witnessed it. (And neither has the story teller.)
    .

    • Spencer Says:

      What WOULD you take as proof of evolution?

      Proof
      Evidence of any kind rather than tortured logic.

      • Spencer Says:



        watch this

        LOL!!!
        “How to shut up pesky creationists.”
        Well there we have it, the proof that I’ve always needed to fall back on evolution as scientific fact.
        Like I’ve never heard those circular arguments before.
        What a scientific, and unbiased video.-chuckles-

  16. Spencer Says:

    So god made our DNA look exactly like it would if 2 ape chromosomes had fused in one of our ancestors to make it look like evolution happened? Another “test of faith”? Or is this one of those “satan did it” things?

    After carefully scouring several sources I rather like this scientific analysis the most. Mind you there are others with variation in wording only.

    The “slam dunk” proof for human evolution is, according to evolutionists, the claimed 98% similarity between human and chimp DNA and the evidence of chromosomal fusion. Textbooks tell us that this proves the common ancestry of humans and apes from ape-like beings that lived millions of years ago.
    What makes this a myth, however, is that evolutionists forget to mention the problems with this claim. For one thing, the percentage of similarity may sound impressive (depending on which percentage you find), but this represents millions of letters of difference in the DNA. Factor in that many of the differences in the DNA are not represented in the “98% similarity” (such as deletions) and epigenetic differences and the chasm grows. Second, seeing the “history” of humans evolving from chimps in DNA and chromosomes requires a prior commitment to evolution. Evolutionists interpret the data to mean what they want it to mean in light of Darwin’s myth.
    Though there are similarities between apes and humans, this too is strong evidence for a common Designer, who gave humanity characteristics unlike any other creature He made. But this doesn’t stop evolutionists, knowingly or not, from using flat-out propaganda as in myth #6.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/evolution-myths#paginateTop

    I had once shown a child a picture of a boy, a banana, a wolf, and a dog, and asked him which one was different. He chose the banana. Most college profesors get that one wrong.

    • Spencer Says:

      After observing this evidence for fusion, to conclude evolution didn’t happen would entail belief that:

      -We were designed
      -The designer created us to appear as though we evolved
      -The designer went so far as to place DNA codons in select chromosomes that serve no purpose and suggest that a fusion of ape chromosomes took place.

      The fusion thing is a lie Spencer and you’ve been brainwashed by Scientism.
      Fusion never happened and until they can succsessfully cross a monkey with a human it’s all speculation. And even if they did it took an outside intelligence.

      • Spencer Says:

        Very well, the fusion didn’t happen. Then we must have been created, therefore there is a God. This God designed us, and even put useless bits in our DNA that match up with the end sequences on chromosomes in monkeys and serve no real purpose. Can I ask why he did this?

        First off Spencer, what you refer to as useless bits of DNA and match up chromosomes (open to interpretation) in monkeys begs a common designer if true. If the Platypus were extinct today no doubt the Darwinist spin doctors would have tagged that one an intermediate as well. Remember I am a former evolutionist and used to defend it ferverently because I never looked at the other options. Once I started comparing apples to apples evolution collapsed for me alneit not overnight.

  17. Spencer Says:

    How does useless DNA beg a common designer?

    • Spencer Says:

      Might i mention that the DNA isn’t useless in the monkeys just us.

      So a plant has the same number of DNA as the monkey.If we wait long enough we’ll become a tree as they have even more. So youre saying DNA is useless???? Is this what I am reading Spencer?


      • So a plant has the same number of DNA as the monkey.If we wait long enough we’ll become a tree as they have even more.

      • Spencer Says:

        I’m saying the DNA on the end of the chromosomes in monkeys is found in the middle of chromosome #2 in humans. While this DNA serves a purpose for the monkeys, its useless in the middle of chromosome #2. If this is evidence for a common designer, its evidence for a stupid one that puts scraps of DNA where it doesn’t belong.

        This is new to me and I have to question your resource. Please provude a citation sio I can review it.

  18. Spencer Says:

    no replies?

  19. Spencer Says:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf

    The telomere sequence, to my understanding is a repetition of the bases TTAGGG. If this were a functioning set of codons in human chromosome #2, it would produce a protein consisting of nothing but leucine and glycine alternating. Unless such a protein would serve a function, then my argument stands.

    I read the .pdf and found it interesting but hardly a case for evolution.
    Rather than summarizing the article that I’ve researched off of the internet I will reproduce it in its entirety here for you to hopefully read.

    A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

    The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4

    Specific examples of these differences include:

    Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
    At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
    While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
    The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
    Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3
    These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.

    In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome. They calculated a mean identity of 98.77% or 1.23% differences. However, this, like other studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account as the new study by Britten did. A nucleotide substitution is a mutation where one base (A, G, C, or T) is replaced with another. An insertion or deletion (indel) is found where there are nucleotides missing when two sequences are compared.

    Figure 1.

    A G T C G T A C C
    | | | | | | | |
    A G T C A T A C C
    A G T C G T A C C
    | | | | | | | |
    A G T C ­ T A C C

    Substitution Insertion/deletion

    Comparison between a base substitution and an insertion/deletion. Two DNA sequences can be compared. If there is a difference in the nucleotides (an A instead of a G) this is a substitution. In contrast, if there is a nucleotide base which is missing it is considered an insertion/deletion. It is assumed that a nucleotide has been inserted into one of the sequences or one has been deleted from the other. It is often too difficult to determine whether the difference is a result of an insertion or a deletion and thus it is called an ‘indel’. Indels can be of virtually any length.

    The Britten2 study looked at 779 kilobase pairs to carefully examine differences between chimpanzees and humans. He found that 1.4% of the bases had been substituted, which was in agreement with previous studies (98.6% similarity). However, he found a much larger number of indels. Most of these were only 1 to 4 nucleotides in length, although there were a few that were > 1000 base pairs long. Surprisingly, the indels added an additional 3.4 % of base pairs that were different.

    While previous studies have focused on base substitutions, they have missed perhaps the greatest contribution to the genetic differences between chimps and humans. Missing nucleotides from one or the other appear to account for more than twice the number of substituted nucleotides. Although the number of substitutions is about ten times higher than the number of indels, the number of nucleotides involved in indels is greater. These indels were reported to be equally represented in the chimp and human sequences. Therefore, the insertions or deletions were not occurring only in the chimp or only in the human and could also be interpreted as intrinsic differences.

    Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!

    A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.’8 To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons6, 10, 11 have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!10

    Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference.6 However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.

    The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.

    References
    Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M. 1998. ‘Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.’ Chromosoma 107:241-246.
    Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635.
    Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y. 2002. ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134.
    Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2-13.
    Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’ Science 281:1432-1434.
    Heyer, E., Zietkeiwicz, E., Rochowski, A., Yotova, V., Puymirat, J., and Labuda D. 2001. ‘Phylogenetic and familial estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates: study of control region mutation in deep-rooting pedigrees.’ Am J Hum Genet 69:1113-1126.
    Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T. 1999. ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:308-314.
    Knight, A., Batzer, M.A., Stoneking, M., Tiwari, H.K., Scheer, W.D., Herrera, R.J., and Deninger, P.L. 1996. ‘DNA sequences of Alu elements indicate a recent replacement of the human autosomal genetic complement.’ Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA 93:4360-4364.
    Parsons T.J., Muniec, D.S., Sullivan, K., Woodyatt, N., Alliston-Greiner, R., Wilson, M.R., Berry, D.L., Holland, K.A., Weedn, V.W., Gill, P., and M.M. Holland. 1997. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat. Genet. 15:363-368.
    Sigurgardottir, S., Helgason, A., Gulcher, J.R., Stefansson, K., and Donnelly P. 2000. ‘The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region.’ Am J Hum Genet 66:1599-1609.

  20. Spencer Says:

    If we were designed, why do we have telomeric sequences in the middle of our chromosomes?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: