Creation evidences

by Rex B13 10 Replies latest jw friends

  • Rex B13
    Rex B13

    Summary of the Evidences for Creation

    "Mosaic" Organs: body parts that are very similar appear sporadically among species that are apparently unrelated (e.g., the eyes of the octopus and of man). Also, the protein structure of "unrelated" species show the same mosaic pattern (i.e., hemoglobin).

    "Living Fossils": Animals that were long thought of as being extinct have suddenly turned up in virtually an unchanged form as their fossil counterparts. This shows that numerous mutations that statistically should have taken place over millions of years have not changed their form at all (e.g., tuatara lizard, cockroaches, starfish, gingko tree, coelacanth fish, bats, etc.).

    Anomalous Fossils: There have been fossils found in rock strata where they should not be, because they were not supposed to have evolved yet. Yet they are there, and they show that the rock strata do not indicate a progression of life through evolution (e.g., Evidence of human artifacts and skeletons imbedded in Coal seams, pollen in Cambrian strata, etc.).

    Polystrate Fossils: In various localities, there can be found fossil trees standing up-right through several layers of rock strata. This indicates that the strata were not laid down over thousands or millions of years, but that the trees were buried rapidly before they could decay. This negates the geological column with its vast ages as well as evolution.

    No Transitional Fossils: For evolution to be true, one should be able to find various in-between stages between "related" species. None have been found to date that are undisputed among evolutionary scientists. Invariably, history shows that what was once thought to be a transitional fossil, turns out to be no transition at all. Many "ape-men" fossils, and even the famous "horse series" and archaeopteryx has been discounted.

    Complexity of Organisms: Even the simplest of cells or even the proteins that are necessary for life are so complex that mathematically they would be impossible to form by chance even allowing many times over the 5 or so billions of years that the earth is supposed to have been in existence. Such was the conclusion of a symposium of mathematicians and evolutionists at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in 1966.

    2nd Law of Thermodynamics: A basic fundamental law of physics and chemistry is that everything naturally tends to run down and to become more disordered with time. Evolution is in direct conflict with this because it says that life tends to become more complex and ordered as time goes on. Things as complicated as life can only become ordered and complex if there is a "factory" or ordering mechanism already in existence (e.g., enzymes, DNA, RNA, etc.) that can put the critical parts together in the right order. And even a "machine" cannot become more complex than the "factory" that makes it. With evolution there is no known mechanism that can do this. Matter itself is not capable of arranging itself in the complex orderly fashion that we see in even the simplest forms of life.

    Evidences of Catastrophism: Fossil graveyards of huge numbers of trapped animals are found throughout the world. Some animals, such as clams, fish, mammoths, and dinosaurs show signs of being killed suddenly with an influx of sediment and water. Other fossils show signs of being transported distances by water. These widespread fossils indicate that fossilization is a catastrophic process taking place rapidly and not due to the slow deposition of sediments pictured in books. With no slow deposition of sediments, there are no vast ages in the geological column, and no evolution.

    Anomalous Radiometric Dates: Many examples of "false readings" have been given by radiometric dating methods. For example, lava flows in Hawaii that have solidified no earlier than 200 years ago give dates of being over a thousand million years old; and rocks on top of the Grand Canyon give dates that are older than those at the bottom of the canyon. It is a typical practice among those who date rocks to throw out dates that do not agree with evolutionary dating schemes. Since evolution depends upon old ages, the dependability of the radiometric method gives evolution no support.

    "Unworkability" of Transition Forms: For many organs a half-way transition is an unworkable organ. Therefore, evolution can not take place by gradual transitions. Also, it is expecting the impossible to believe that one organ can transform suddenly into another fully functioning organ. Some examples of unworkable transition organs would be the eye; the bombardier beetle's "gun"; the woodpecker's bill, tongue and tongue sheath; the Venus fly trap; and the giraffe's circulatory system.

    Over 300 Chronometers Giving Young Ages for the Earth: Far more dating methods give young ages for the age of the earth than old dates: the decaying magnetic field of the earth; the lack of helium in the atmosphere; the lack of extraterrestrial nickel on the earth; the abundance of comets and meteors; the smallness of the deltas of the world; the lack of minerals in the oceans; the presence of oil gushers; ocean sediment thickness; the slowing of the earth's spin; population statistics; the mutational load in genes, etc., etc. If the earth is young, then evolution could not have happened.

  • Francois
    Francois

    Sorry, doesn't wash. I won't respond to your entire post. Just a couple of holes should be sufficient.

    You state: "For evolution to be true, one should be able to find various in-between stages between "related" species." This is a naive presumption. The idea of punctuated evolution has been around long enough for everyone who's paying attention to know of it. For instance the emergence of the eye was not a transitional development. There's no such thing as an eye in developmental stages. The eye didn't exist; then it did - suddenly.

    It doesn't take much imagination to credit God with the ability to program the highly complex DNA structure to suddenly produce a new feature when evolution has reached a certain stage and is ready for the development. Much more complex developmental issues are handled by human beings.

    Elsewhere you state, "A basic fundamental law of physics and chemistry is that everything naturally tends to run down and to become more disordered with time." Again, not so. Suns begin with the simplest element, hydrogen - one electron and one proton. From this basic elemental constitution of the sun, all other elements are produced; all of them. This is a primary example of process from simplest (hydrogen) producing an array of vastly more complex elements (namely, all of them) and doing so via natural processes. The simple becomes complex.

    And so on and on and on with all of your arguments. Let's save a few for others here to address.

    However, I'm very interested in another aspect of your position.

    Why are you opposed to the idea that God created everything, and evolution was his technique? Do you not credit the creator with the ability to do such a thing? Do you think the creator is constrained by the limits of your imagination? There must be SOME reason you reject the evidence and the idea of evolution, including that which reveals all living systems on this plant (plant, animal, everything living) came from ONE and only one source? What is your rationale?

    I'd also invite your attention to the fact that each and every time religion has tangled with science, religion has fled the field of conflict with its tail between its legs. Of course, as in the example of the 350 years it took the Catholic church to apologize to Nicholas Copernicus, it sometimes takes religion awhile to get around to admitting its failure.

    Examine the history of these conflicts from the church's once exclusive knowledge of what was really behind eclipses of the sun to its rapidly failing attempts to resist the fact of evolution.

    What is behind this resistance to undeniable fact? In the case of the example regarding eclipses of the sun, the priests used their exclusive knowledge of this phenomena to maintain fear of them among the populace, to maintain their position, their power, their ego. And when the people discovered what was really causing this phenomena, those dishonest priests did indeed loose influence - as they should have.

    The church once denied the existance of a vacuum.

    The church insisted the sun and all else orbited the earth.

    The church claimed it could control the gods via sacrifice, magic.

    The church asserted the earth is only 4,000 years old.

    The church took many, many silly positions in opposition to science and scientific fact and as noted left the field embarrassed.

    The list of those things that the church claimed for itself; of those things of science it vehemently denied is as long as it is sad.

    And the church has lost the battle over evolution as well. That loss is final. How long before the church and its adherents are forced, red-faced, to admit it? Another 350 years?

    The church would do well to concern itself with the SCIENTIST, and leave science itself alone. It has proved its incompetence in this area over and over and over again.

    So why do you resist the idea that God created everything, and that evolution was his technique? Why?

    Francois

    Where it is a duty to worship the Sun you can be sure that a study of the laws of heat is a crime.

  • Rex B13
    Rex B13

    >The eye didn't exist; then it did - suddenly

    Bwwwaahhhhhhhhhh,,,,,ROfL
    Er, excuse me. What fairy tale did that come from? Maybe that is from Alan's great internet posting?

    >It doesn't take much imagination to credit God with the ability to program the highly complex DNA structure to suddenly produce a new feature when evolution has reached a certain stage and is ready for the development. Much more complex developmental issues are handled by human beings.

    Can you demonstrate this in a lab? How about the mixing of chemicals to bring life from non-life? .......I thought not. Man can't figure out DNA other than to attempt to imitate it.

    Listen up to this one:
    Jesus Christ confirmed EVERY bit of the Hebrew scripture as valid and He viewed the book of Genesis as fact. He is God in the flesh and He raised from the dead just as He said He would.
    Therefore any support of evolution or unbelief in the Genesis account by back sliding, compromising 'Christians' betrays their true fallen, unsaved nature.
    Your faith is worthless if it is built on only PART of scripture.
    Rex

  • Trilobite
    Trilobite

    As usual, WhyDoesHeBoreUs-Rex a.k.a. WW, badly mistated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when he said:

    <i>2nd Law of Thermodynamics: A basic fundamental law of physics and chemistry is that everything naturally tends to run down and to become more disordered with time. Evolution is in direct conflict with this because it says that life tends to become more complex and ordered as time goes on. Things as complicated as life can only become ordered and complex if there is a "factory" or ordering mechanism already in existence (e.g., enzymes, DNA, RNA, etc.) that can put the critical parts together in the right order. And even a "machine" cannot become more complex than the "factory" that makes it. With evolution there is no known mechanism that can do this. </i>

    Maybe Rexy could tell us the difference between a merely fundamental law of physics and a basic fundamental law of physics? Anyway, The 2nd Law simply states that in any spontaneous process the total entropy of the universe must increase. Entropy can be taken to be a measure of disorder. All this means, then, is that, if one part of the universe becomes more organized, than the rest of the universe must become sufficiently disorganized so as to assure that an overall increase in total entropy occurs. What this half-baked twit doesn't understand is that if his argument about the 2nd Law were valid then it would also preclude creation. It is well known that entropy is a state property and, therefore, its change does not depend on <i>how</i> one goes from state A (e.g., dust) to state B (e.g., human) but only on the what the initial and final states happen to be. Thus whether by God or by evolution Rex has neatly disproved the existence of life if his understanding of the 2nd Law is correct.

    Remarkably, but perhaps not, he focuses on the mechanisms, or paths, which are precisely irrelevant because entropy is a state property. This is exactly the opposite of what should be done in calculations of the entropy change of a system. Stated differently, if it is possible to go from State A to State B at all, then the entropy change is rigorously independent of the particular means by which that change occurs.

    It never fails to amaze how creationists will refuse to educate themselves on matters which intrinsically have nothing to do with evolution <i>per se</i>. They prefer to tell silly lies for their god.

    Of course Rexy-boy will probably argue that he is just as much entitled to his own views on what constitutes the 2nd Law as is anybody else. Which would only go to show what an idiot he is since nobody can interpret a "Law of nature." After all, such laws were given to us by God Himself, right?

    Of course the Rexster is a sterling example of the 4th Law of Thermodynamics which states that the total sum of intelligence in the Universe is conserved. Thus, as some people get smarter through education, inexorably, others grow dumber.

    Clearly, that which is crooked cannot be made straight.

    T.

  • joelbear
    joelbear

    If there is a god who created life why didn't he put life everywhere, on every planet in the solar system?

  • Rex B13
    Rex B13

    Another self-satisfied, ex-JW atheist, eh?

    >Things as complicated as life can only become ordered and complex if there is a "factory" or ordering mechanism already in existence (e.g., enzymes, DNA, RNA, etc.) that can put the critical parts together in the right order.

    Who put the enzymes, dna and rna together in the first place, dimbulb?

    >It is well known that entropy is a state property and, therefore, its change does not depend on <i>how</i> one goes from state A (e.g., dust) to state B (e.g., human) but only on the what the initial and final states happen to be.

    Creation is a positive completed action and the continual degradation of all things created is just one evidence that the whole universe is in a fallen state.

    Your witty little attempts at insult show just how worried you are over your choice to abandon God. It's empty rhetoric from a 'child whistling as he walks through a graveyard'.
    Have a nice day!
    Rex

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    Sorry, WW, but we are not whistling past the graveyard...we have nothing to fear. You are the one who lives in constant fear of not fully pleasing your god.

  • Trilobite
    Trilobite

    Hey Rexster the Huxster,

    I note that, like all your ilk, you have nothing to say, apart from unprovable assertions.

    Explain, if you can, how the complexity of a snowflake can arise from the more chaotic, and therefore "degraded" state of water vapor. According to your stupid theories such an event would be impossible.

    It is slightly amusing to watch you flailing around in your desperate attempts to prove that God exists. After all, if you lost that faith what would you have left? Where would you go? Certainly you wouldn't have your intelligence to fall back on. Better stick with the program Rexy.

    T.

  • Flip
    Flip

    At the risk of sounding like Fred Hall, ‘biblical creation’ credibility is simply suspect if it requires you to explain it, Rex.

    After 6000yrs, you’d think God could have come up with a better system of promotional delivery.

    God "beating the living crap" out of everone who disagrees with the logic, is not one of them.

    Flip

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    Summary of the Evidences for Creation

    Sigh, here we go:

    "Mosaic" Organs: body parts that are very similar appear sporadically among species that are apparently unrelated (e.g., the eyes of the octopus and of man). Also, the protein structure of "unrelated" species show the same mosaic pattern (i.e., hemoglobin).

    Firstly, there are no "unrelated" species. All life on earth is descended from a common ancestor (or appears to be so in every testable way). Secondly, the fact that useful organs (such as eyes) have apparently evolved independently many times, provides at least circumstantial evidence that it's not that difficult.

    "Living Fossils": Animals that were long thought of as being extinct have suddenly turned up in virtually an unchanged form as their fossil counterparts. This shows that numerous mutations that statistically should have taken place over millions of years have not changed their form at all (e.g., tuatara lizard, cockroaches, starfish, gingko tree, coelacanth fish, bats, etc.).

    No, it shows that these animals are very well adapted for their environment and that that environment has not changed significantly. When you say "virtually an unchanged form" are you allowing that a little bit of evolution has taken place?

    Anomalous Fossils: There have been fossils found in rock strata where they should not be, because they were not supposed to have evolved yet. Yet they are there, and they show that the rock strata do not indicate a progression of life through evolution (e.g., Evidence of human artifacts and skeletons imbedded in Coal seams, pollen in Cambrian strata, etc.).

    Polystrate Fossils: In various localities, there can be found fossil trees standing up-right through several layers of rock strata. This indicates that the strata were not laid down over thousands or millions of years, but that the trees were buried rapidly before they could decay. This negates the geological column with its vast ages as well as evolution.

    That's just not true. At all. It's made up by creationists.

    No Transitional Fossils: For evolution to be true, one should be able to find various in-between stages between "related" species. None have been found to date that are undisputed among evolutionary scientists. Invariably, history shows that what was once thought to be a transitional fossil, turns out to be no transition at all.

    Now Rex, that's just bullshit, and lazy, tired bullshit at that. Any fossil that is found is labelled either as a member of an existing species, or as a member of a new species. Nothing is ever labelled as "transitional." No organism is ever "on the way" to becoming a member of another future species. Evolution works on the genetic level, the here and now. Species are always well-adapted for their present environment or they become extinct.

    Many "ape-men" fossils, and even the famous "horse series" and archaeopteryx has been discounted.

    Rex, that's a lie. They have only been discounted by creationists, not by scientists who live in the real world.

    Complexity of Organisms: Even the simplest of cells or even the proteins that are necessary for life are so complex that mathematically they would be impossible to form by chance even allowing many times over the 5 or so billions of years that the earth is supposed to have been in existence. Such was the conclusion of a symposium of mathematicians and evolutionists at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in 1966.

    Working out the odds after the event is a pointless exercise at best, especially when you have to guess a lot of the numbers. Other simulations have shown the time available to be more than adequate. But they're all just simulations.

    2nd Law of Thermodynamics: A basic fundamental law of physics and chemistry is that everything naturally tends to run down and to become more disordered with time. Evolution is in direct conflict with this because it says that life tends to become more complex and ordered as time goes on. Things as complicated as life can only become ordered and complex if there is a "factory" or ordering mechanism already in existence (e.g., enzymes, DNA, RNA, etc.) that can put the critical parts together in the right order. And even a "machine" cannot become more complex than the "factory" that makes it. With evolution there is no known mechanism that can do this. Matter itself is not capable of arranging itself in the complex orderly fashion that we see in even the simplest forms of life.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy increases in a closed system. Earth is not a closed system. We are constantly receiving energy from the sun. Therefore, no violation of the law. It's easy to think of examples where order comes from disorder without intelligent input.

    Evidences of Catastrophism: Fossil graveyards of huge numbers of trapped animals are found throughout the world. Some animals, such as clams, fish, mammoths, and dinosaurs show signs of being killed suddenly with an influx of sediment and water. Other fossils show signs of being transported distances by water. These widespread fossils indicate that fossilization is a catastrophic process taking place rapidly and not due to the slow deposition of sediments pictured in books. With no slow deposition of sediments, there are no vast ages in the geological column, and no evolution.

    These "evidences" are getting weaker, Rex. "Some animals" drowned, huh? Wow!

    OK, I'm not going any further here. I don't have the time or the inclination to pick apart every bit of bullshit that you've copied and pasted from worldbydesign.org
    The argument is pointless because you will never give an inch on your fundamental premise, and will do everything you can to hold on to your beliefs.

    --
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit