While one may correctly say that evolution is a fraud, that is not to say that that same person “believes in†Creation as it is literally set forth in Genesis.
The answer is: We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.
Evolution is as much, if not more, of an irrational religion than what any Creationist spouts.
Sean O’leary
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
0.27 or 0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. The low ‘age’ samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say
Nor can we accept the implicit truth of the christian god’s existence, because there is NO empirically verifiable evidence.
.
right, i’m going to leave this debate up to Maxwell. it’s late here in the UK, i have lectures tomorrow, and i need sleep.
0.27 million years is actually the correct ‘date’, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct ‘age’ if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!
Because these rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, it is apparent from the analytical data that these K–Ar ‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth. Thus, when the lavas cooled, they contained appreciable (non-zero) concentrations of ‘normal’ 40Ar, which is indistinguishable from daughter radiogenic 40Ar* derived by radioactive decay of parent 40K. This violates assumption of radioactive dating, and so the K–Ar method fails the test. This same failure is also known to occur in many other rocks, including both recent volcanics8and ancient crustal rocks.
This makes it highly unreliable for the purposes that you mention.
.
evolution does not explain the origin of life, merely its diversity. it is no way a defunct position. life could possibly have been created by god. it could equally have arisen spontaneaously in primordial oceans (you only need that first strand of DNA) or have come to earth clinging to a meteor in the form of archaeobacteria. (then what are we arguing for? And how do you explain life being created without a God? That conclusion as a possibility does not follow).
I will tell you like C.S. Lewis did about our thoughts coming from Chemicals.
If that is true, then we have no reason to trust our thoughts, since they are unreliablly solely chemical processes derived from the mind. And if that be true, then we have no trusting that they are unreliable chemical processes in the first place.
Karl Marx tried and failed years ago with that one. Nice try though.
Nor can we accept the implicit truth of the christian god’s existence, because there is NO empirically verifiable evidence. - prove this statement.
.
right, i’m going to leave this debate up to Maxwell. it’s late here in the UK, i have lectures tomorrow, and i need sleep. Better luck next time :).
i can’t leave without replying to your comment on transitional fossils. yes, they are potential. no, they cannot be 100% verified because we do not have living samples here. but to say that none of the transitional forms discovered bare any relevance here is stupid. theory of evolution predicts transitional forms and guess what, we find transitional forms!
for one, we do not lack the DNA code of all ancestor species. many primitive species still exist in the world today - argument by mere assertion. These species would be?
.
and what the hell do you mean when you say that no recombination has resulted in a new genetic code? did you miss my post on a previous thread about antibiotic-resistant bacteria? This feedback, from Mikko Ilmari Nummelin of Finland, who gave permission for his full name to be used, criticises the responses to the PBS series on ostensibly scientific grounds. He accuses CMI of bias, falsehood, and misinformation, but fails to back up his points.
The only issue he does attempt to back up is a claim of information increase that caused increased resistance to antibiotics. But this once again fails to understand the key relationship between information and specified complexity. Once again, supposed evidence for evolution turns out to be better explained by the Creation/Fall model. His letter is printed with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati (the author of the PBS responses) interspersed as per normal email fashion. MIN’s letter includes quotes from the PBS rebuttal, which are double-indented. Ellipses at the end of one of the paragraphs signal that a mid-sentence comment follows, not an omission. - might this be what you are referring to? Old hat.
.
of course evolution bares the burden of proof - it’s a scientific THEORY! everything in science bares this burden. gravity, electricity and physical/temporal relativity all bare the burden of proof. evolution has literally masses of evidence, from DNA sequencing to the fossil record, yet you seem intent on closing your eyes, jamming your fingers in your ears and ignoring it as well as you possibly can.
DNA sequencing :). You really don’t want to go there with me do you? I can chew that cud up and spit it out.
DNA comparisons—subject to interpretation
Scientific American repeats the common argument that DNA comparisons help scientists to reconstruct the evolutionary development of organisms:
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.
Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.
So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry (evolution). Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation—similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels. And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.
Debunking the ‘molecular clock’
Scientific American repeats the common canard that DNA gives us a ‘molecular clock’ that tells us the history of DNA’s evolution from the simplest life form to mankind:
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the ‘molecular clock’ that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non-creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64 –69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.
The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome → fish → amphibian → reptile → mammal or bird.
Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms (despite some anomalies discussed earlier which present even more problems). For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved.
i can’t leave without replying to your comment on transitional fossils. yes, they are potential. no, they cannot be 100% verified because we do not have living samples here. but to say that none of the transitional forms discovered bare any relevance here is stupid. theory of evolution predicts transitional forms and guess what, we find transitional forms! - WHERE?
I don’t mind arguing facts with these christian folk, but we cannot disprove them, and they cannot disprove us with facts. We quote scholars, they quote scholars. We call them closed-minded, they call us (insert filthy word of your choice here). I think the real debate is about thought. Specifically, who is interested in controlling our thoughts, and why. Why do religious zealots seek to spread their influence? Why do they want us to believe in what they believe in? And, why do they get so offended when we don’t believe it? That is the heart of all this. There is power in numbers. We scare the by-jesus out of them because we discuss this, and someone may read it and believe us instead of them. Just for the record; to all human beings, it’s ok with me to believe whatever you want to. Just dont kill in the name of god and expect me to keep quiet. Dont tell me what to teach in school, and I won’t bother you. Don’t tell me I’m going to Hell because I say or do something your book don’t (bad grammar on purpose) approve of, and I won’t challenge your myopic views in public. Samey-Samey. I can keep my word, can you?
My point is this. We have but a handful of even potentials. We should have many more if Evolution is true. But we don’t.
@Dr. Michael Martin
.
about .15% of biologists and geologists believe in creationism/ID.
here are a couple links to help it get into your head that overwhelming scientific evidence beats “I dont get it, so God did it”
.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.nap.edu/hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_lifetml/creationism/evidence.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
.
A simple google search will get you HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (actually, more) of websites that support (and often prove) that a big white guy could not have created us.
Show a little intelligence, it isn’t really all that hard.
RAmen
@dr. michael martin
.
the reason why creationism is stupid is because the scientific evidence for it is……well there is none. creationism is a way of saying ‘god did it’ in a more politically correct sense. you see, you think that evolution is wrong because it contradicts your 2000 year old myth. yea, i said it, myth. you will probably say the same about evolution, but there’s a difference. evolution has been based on observation, testing, genetics, the fossil record, vestigial structures, and countless other things.
.
creationism is supported by the myths set forth in a 2000 year old book. since this book has been around for so long, i’ll admit it’s hard to let it go. however, it isn’t correct. you’ll say, ‘o, i have blind faith that the bible is 100% true’. well, if the bible is 100% true, then the world is flat right. wrong. you can accept that because we figured that out centuries ago. you won’t accept evolution because you feel it as a threat to your myths.
.
you can call me crazy, but i am not the one making shit up.
I don’t mind arguing facts with these christian folk, but we cannot disprove them, and they cannot disprove us with facts. We quote scholars, they quote scholars. We call them closed-minded, they call us (insert filthy word of your choice here). I think the real debate is about thought. Specifically, who is interested in controlling our thoughts, and why. Why do religious zealots seek to spread their influence? Why do they want us to believe in what they believe in? And, why do they get so offended when we don’t believe it? That is the heart of all this. There is power in numbers. We scare the by-jesus out of them because we discuss this, and someone may read it and believe us instead of them. Just for the record; to all human beings, it’s ok with me to believe whatever you want to. Just dont kill in the name of god and expect me to keep quiet. Dont tell me what to teach in school, and I won’t bother you. Don’t tell me I’m going to Hell because I say or do something your book don’t (bad grammar on purpose) approve of, and I won’t challenge your myopic views in public. Samey-Samey. I can keep my word, can you?
Haha, this is quite funny….we finally have a guy who realizes that Evolution is solely a Philosophy.
Well, this would be great…if it indeed was MYYYY book. But its not. And we have plenty of evidential support pointing out that a gentleman by the name of Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and performed many miracles.
Why do we want you to believe in this? It has nothing to do with numbers. We are debunking your arguments for no self-interested motives at all. We do it because we truly believe that there is a God, who lived us enough to come to earth as man and die on a cross for our sins, and that he truly rose from the dead as he proclaimed. If you can debunk the resurrection, you’ve done away with Christianity. This has failed to have been done by ANYBODY.
@dr. michael martin
.
the reason why creationism is stupid is because the scientific evidence for it is……well there is none. creationism is a way of saying ‘god did it’ in a more politically correct sense. you see, you think that evolution is wrong because it contradicts your 2000 year old myth. yea, i said it, myth. you will probably say the same about evolution, but there’s a difference. evolution has been based on observation, testing, genetics, the fossil record, vestigial structures, and countless other things.
.
creationism is supported by the myths set forth in a 2000 year old book. since this book has been around for so long, i’ll admit it’s hard to let it go. however, it isn’t correct. you’ll say, ‘o, i have blind faith that the bible is 100% true’. well, if the bible is 100% true, then the world is flat right. wrong. you can accept that because we figured that out centuries ago. you won’t accept evolution because you feel it as a threat to your myths.
.
you can call me crazy, but i am not the one making shit up.
RIGHT, and your myth that we descended from common ancestry makes a WHOLE lot more sense, right?
Prove the Bible wrong.
In fact, our book is the only one, again that tells us to critically analyze everything…and hold on to the good stuff.
Hey, you poseur Jesus Christ up there. What does Young Earth Creation Science believe?
p.s.
.
god isn’t a science
I don’t mind arguing facts with these christian folk, but we cannot disprove them, and they cannot disprove us with facts.
Well, sounds like you’ve just proven this….with a fact right?
If so, then your point is moot. If not, then your point is also moot. You’re wrong either way. Faulty logic, but we’d expect that from Agnosticism.
p.s.
.
god isn’t a science
No stuff Sherlock.
What does YECS believe?
Theodicy and Theology are what we use to analyze God.
Atheism is a form of Theology. This has been proven through court cases. As such, if you assert Atheism, you assert an Atheistic Theology. Thats self defeating, and false.