[JEBSTER52]

Present Processes If there is anything certain in this world, it is that there is no evidence whatever that evolution is occurring today-that is, true vertical evolution, from some simpler kind to some more complex kind. No one has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything else of this sort. Despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it, no one has yet come up with a workable mechanism to explain it, it would seem that it has been falsified, at least as far as the present world is concerned. This does not prove that it did not happen in the past, but the evolutionist should recognize that evolution is not science since it is not observable. Evolution must be excepted on faith.

What about the past?
Actually, there is no evidence at all that evolution ever took place in the past. In all recorded history, extending back nearly 5,000 years, no one has ever recorded the natural evolution of any kind of creature (living or non-living) into a more complex kind. Furthermore, all known vertical changes seem to go in the wrong direction. An average of at least one species has become exstinct every day since records have been kept, but no new species have evolved during that time. Stars explode, comets and meteorites disintergrate, the biosphere deteriorates, and everything eventually dies, so far as all historical observations go, but nothing has ever evolved into higher complexity. The fossil record is one of extinction, not evolution. Numerous kinds of exstinct animals are found (Dinosaurs), but never, in all the billions of fossils, is a truly incipient or transitional form found! No fossil has ever been found with half scales/half feathers,half legs, half wings, half-developed heart, half-developed eye, or any other such indicator. If evolution were true, there should be millions of transitional types among these multiplied billions of fossils-in fact, everything should show transitional features. But they do not!

If evolution did not occur in the past, and does not occur at the present, then it is entirely imaginary-not a part of the real world at all. This leaves Creation as the necessary explanation of origins.

This fact is also confirmed by the best-proved laws of science-the law of conservation in quantity and the law of decay in complexity, or the famous First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The first Law states that in all real processes, the total quantity of matter and /or energy stays constant, even though it frequently changes form. The Second Law notes that quality of any system-its usefulness, its complexity, its information value-always tends to decrease. In living organisms, true vertical change go down, not up-mutations cause deteriorations, individuals die, species become extinct. In fact everything in the Universe seems to be headed downhill toward ultimate cosmic death! The First Law states that nothing is being created or evolved by present processes. The Second Law notes that there is a universal tendency for everything to disintergrate, to run down and finally die. The whole universe is growing old, wearing out headed toward ultimate stillness and death. This universal "increase in entropy" leads directly to the conclusion that there must have been a creation of things in the past; otherwise, everything would be dead (since they are unversally dying in the present). Think about it...Jeb

[lanbrown]

What happens when man can create sustainable fusion? In essence, we have created how a sun works.

Man wasn't around when the galaxy started; it takes millions and millions of years. Where were we 4,000 years ago? Even now, we don't fully understand how the universe works, so if man did witness something, they wouldn't know what it was. They also didn't have to tools then to witness it if it did occur.

Using your thinking, if we didn't witness it, then it didn't occur? Did we witness god creating us? The old chicken and the egg scenario.

[pladecalvo]

Oh dear Jeb! You really haven't got a clue about evolution have you? All you do is cut and paste idiotic pseudo science from ICR.

For anyone who is interested you can see Jeb's post word for word here.
logic biblical creation

Jeb, If you are going to link articles about evolution please give us links to reputable scientific sites that deal with fact rather than fiction.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

No fossil has ever been found with half scales/half feathers,half legs, half wings, half-developed heart, half-developed eye, or any other such indicator. If evolution were true, there should be millions of transitional types among these multiplied billions of fossils-in fact, everything should show transitional features. But they do not!

This is an excellent example of the idiotic nonsense that creationist sites like ICR is putting out as "science." Creationists actually do believe that a fish went to sleep on Monday night and woke up Tuesday morning with legs. They are so indoctrinated by the misinformation put out by places like ICR that they really do believe the Theory of Evolution says that man evolved from apes!!

Please educate yourself regarding evolution Jeb. You're just making a fool of yourself mate.

This fact is also confirmed by the best-proved laws of science-the law of conservation in quantity and the law of decay in complexity, or the famous First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The first Law states that in all real processes, the total quantity of matter and /or energy stays constant, even though it frequently changes form. The Second Law notes that quality of any system-its usefulness, its complexity, its information value-always tends to decrease.

Please educate yourself Jeb.
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Think about it...

No need to. Your OP is creationist pseudo science and an excellent example of how creationist will believe any sort of rubbish as long as it helps them to cling on to primitive superstitious beliefs.

[MACI4LIFE]

Actually Jeb, Scientist have been able to get fruit flies from the same species to evolve into 2 different subspecies. They were able to seperate the flies into 2 groups, and watch as their very fast reproduction cycles allow them to have hundreds of generations of flies, and actually form new flies.

[JEBSTER52]

That is not Macro evolution, that is micro/adaptation...which by the way is what the failed preacher Darwin, found on the Islands!

As for you Plad the Sad just stop attacking me and respond to the questions! FRom Piltdown to the fake Lucy, not one trnsitional fossil record. Don't pop your athiest gums saying where you think I get my data, because it comes from scientist that believe in creation. Now stop dogging the questions and tell me your understanding of how the laws of Thermodynamics and their relationship to our current world! Let's go Plade the sado!

[JEBSTER52]

Let me see...3,000 well known Paleoarchiologist/Paleoanthropologist and countless other highly education and well written in the field and acedemia are dumber that an ex-biker/musician?? PLADPLADPLAD you are the man! You reallyneed to find one MISSING LINKS???? One transitional creature! The Horse Series was proven bogus but the Smithsonian let children go on believing that lie! Piltdown stayed in text books for over 100 years after it was proven a fake. STop blasting m,y references and start talking facts! Or take your marbles and go home!

[lanbrown]

How do you have a scientist that believes in creation? That is like a pro-abstinence hooker.

[WyoJames]

another one of these?

[JEBSTER52]

Some of the worlds greatest minds were not only Christians, but believe that the power to unlock the atom was in the book of Genesis! Sir Issac Newton is the leader of the pack! IAN google creation research or Inteligent Design. There are thousands of them just as there are 650 scientist that don't support Global Warming! Surprise! Jeb

[lanbrown]

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

IAN google creation research or Inteligent Design.

You have the name wrong. If you pray hard enough and haven't sinned, maybe, just maybe god will whisper it in your ear. if you don't hear anything, keep trying, he might answer one day.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

As for you Plad the Sad just stop attacking me and respond to the questions! FRom Piltdown to the fake Lucy, not one trnsitional fossil record. Don't pop your athiest gums saying where you think I get my data, because it comes from scientist that believe in creation. Now stop dogging the questions and tell me your understanding of how the laws of Thermodynamics and their relationship to our current world! Let's go Plade the sado!

I have already responded with a link to a site that deals with factual science rather than a site that deals in pseudo-science from idiots who attempt to discredit evolution by claiming that it says that man evolved from monkeys. Read the link I gave you and educate yourself with reality.

ICR claim that order can't arise from disorder is easily debunked every day when seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks, crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapour molecules. The idiotic "scientists" at ICR categorically state that entropy can never decrease; again, easily disproved because we know that when heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! ICR, as it always has done, bases it's arguments on misguided and false science in order to promote creationism. ICR "scientists" deliberately mislead and are a joke amongst the real scientists of this world. Find me a site that does not have an agenda to promote creationism and supports your argument Jeb.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

Let me see...3,000 well known Paleoarchiologist/Paleoanthropologist and countless other highly education and well written in the field and acedemia are dumber that an ex-biker/musician?? PLADPLADPLAD you are the man! You reallyneed to find one MISSING LINKS???? One transitional creature! The Horse Series was proven bogus but the Smithsonian let children go on believing that lie! Piltdown stayed in text books for over 100 years after it was proven a fake. STop blasting m,y references and start talking facts! Or take your marbles and go home!

I am talking facts...unlike your pseudo-scientific Bible apologist web-sites. If you want to see a transitional fossil you need do no more than look at a human skeleton. You will see the transition between what we were and what we will be. You can find others here:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes
On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"

Whether you like it or not Jeb, evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[pladecalvo]

second-law-of-thermodynamics

[MACI4LIFE]

Hey Jeb, have you seen this documentry by nova?

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS

it'll pretty much sum up everything that you're arguing, but you won't like the conclusion.

In the trial they even put the founders of ID on the bench for questioning and and made them look like fools.

[MACI4LIFE]

speaking on the lack of transitional fossils....

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Fossil Evidence | PBS

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by MACI4LIFE

In the trial they even put the founders of ID on the bench for questioning and and made them look like fools.

Bet that didn't take much effort!

[MACI4LIFE]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Bet that didn't take much effort!

watch it, you'd get a good chuckle from it.

[pladecalvo]

I'd love to but I can't watch videos. I live in a remote area and don't have a telephone line. I'm using a radio link for my connection and it's 10 times slower than dial-up. Each page of this forum takes about a minute to load so you can imagine how long a video would take. I once tried to download an 8 minute music video. After two hours I got 25 seconds of video. What a nightmare!!

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by MACI4LIFE

speaking on the lack of transitional fossils....

I think we are wasting our time Mac. There isn't much chance of an intelligent conversation with someone who believes the universe is only 6000 years old. I bet he believe in a global flood too!

[pladecalvo]

A Creationist Exposed

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

Let me see...3,000 well known Paleoarchiologist/Paleoanthropologist and countless other highly education and well written in the field and acedemia are dumber that an ex-biker/musician??

Well I sure hope they have better academic qualifications than these "creation scientists" ...some of whom work for your beloved ICR.

Suspicious Creationist Credentials

What a bunch of jokers!! Scientists my arse!!

[dr256]

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

Present Processes If there is anything certain in this world, it is that there is no evidence whatever that evolution is occurring today-that is, true vertical evolution, from some simpler kind to some more complex kind. No one has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything else of this sort. Despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it, no one has yet come up with a workable mechanism to explain it, it would seem that it has been falsified, at least as far as the present world is concerned. This does not prove that it did not happen in the past, but the evolutionist should recognize that evolution is not science since it is not observable. Evolution must be excepted on faith.

I thought about as you asked and I came to the conclusion that you have actually given a really good argument for God also not existing. Like you say, your argument for creationism could as easily be applied to God.
So for example:

If there is anything certain in this world, it is that there is no evidence whatever that God exists today. No one has ever observed God, seen life rise up to heaven, seen Jesus turn water into wine, cure a man from disease, or anything else of this sort. Despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it, no one has yet come up with a workable mechanism to explain it, it would seem that it has been falsified, at least as far as the present world is concerned. This does not prove that it did not happen in the past, but the evangelists should recognize that God is not fact since it is not observable. God must be excepted on faith.

[pladecalvo]

The Creation Research Society, established to promote and fund "scientific" creation research, publishes a journal called the Creation Research Society Quarterly. It is one of the only journals (that I know of) where creationists are able or have even tried to publish their work. Prominent creationists such as Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Thomas Barnes, and Harold Slusher have all served on its board of directors at one time or another. The society and journal require that all members adhere to the following statement of belief.

Statement of Belief:
1.The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2.All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3.The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4.We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

As far as I know, no mainstream scientific journal requires its authors to sign a statement of belief. One wonders why creationist journals do.
The Creation Research Society's Creed

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by dr256

I thought about as you asked and I came to the conclusion that you have actually given a really good argument for God also not existing. Like you say, your argument for creationism could as easily be applied to God.
So for example:

If there is anything certain in this world, it is that there is no evidence whatever that God exists today. No one has ever observed God, seen life rise up to heaven, seen Jesus turn water into wine, cure a man from disease, or anything else of this sort. Despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it, no one has yet come up with a workable mechanism to explain it, it would seem that it has been falsified, at least as far as the present world is concerned. This does not prove that it did not happen in the past, but the evangelists should recognize that God is not fact since it is not observable. God must be excepted on faith.

Aaaaaaaahahahahaha!!! Nice one fella!

[pladecalvo]

Jeb's Christian Fundamentalist Science Reaction Checklist.

Theory of electromagnetism: Good!
Theory of gravity: Good!
Quantum theory: Good!
Germ Theory: Good!
Thermodynamics: Good!

Theory of evolution: Science is evil and filled with atheists who want to destroy Christianity everywhere and those dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to trick us.

Photosynthesis: Good!
Periodic Table of the Elements: Good!
Theory of Relativity: Good!
Acoustics Theory: Good!
Chaos Theory: Good!
Number theory: Good!

Big Bang theory: Science is evil and filled with atheists who want to destroy Christianity everywhere and how can they believe in the Big Bang when no one was around to see it.

Cell Theory: Good!
Decision theory: Good!
Circuit Theory: Good!

So, in general, science is great and one of the best means of understanding our universe unless it contradicts the writings of ancient goat herders. Then it's evil and wrong.

[MACI4LIFE]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Jeb's Christian Fundamentalist Science Reaction Checklist.

Theory of electromagnetism: Good!
Theory of gravity: Good!
Quantum theory: Good!
Germ Theory: Good!
Thermodynamics: Good!

Theory of evolution: Science is evil and filled with atheists who want to destroy Christianity everywhere and those dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to trick us.

Photosynthesis: Good!
Periodic Table of the Elements: Good!
Theory of Relativity: Good!
Acoustics Theory: Good!
Chaos Theory: Good!
Number theory: Good!

Big Bang theory: Science is evil and filled with atheists who want to destroy Christianity everywhere and how can they believe in the Big Bang when no one was around to see it.

Cell Theory: Good!
Decision theory: Good!
Circuit Theory: Good!

So, in general, science is great and one of the best means of understanding our universe unless it contradicts the writings of ancient goat herders. Then it's evil and wrong.

lol,

hey, atleast he's consistant.

most conservative christians like to take bits and pieces of the bible as fact and discard the rest, just like science.

[pladecalvo]

Science would be in big trouble if it discarded what it didn't like Mac. That's the good thing about it...it accepts that things are what they are, whether they are likeable or not.

[cherd]

People naturally seek knowledge; they want to feel that they know the “truth”. When it comes to topics like our existence, or the existence of the universe, there have been two main avenues by which people have sought the truth: religion and science. Science is a systematic approach that relies on a process of observation and experimentation, which provides data that either support or disprove hypotheses. Hypotheses are rejected or refined based on observations until they become theories, which are models that we use to understand our physical world. Religion typically constitutes a belief in a supernatural power that created the universe and life as we know it. The process by which these two methods arrive at the “truth” makes them mutually exclusive, because science relies on observation and religion does not. Therefore, there really is no such thing as a creationist scientist.

People can believe what they want, seeking truth through the method that they deem most sensible. A problem can arise, however, when a religious (creationist) individual realizes the validity of the scientific method, and that resulting theories contradict what they “want” to believe. If this person is unwilling to abandon their creationist perspective, then they try to use the scientific method to validate their beliefs (the fictional creationist scientists). It is, of course, impossible to provide data through observation and experimentation that support creationism. So, attempts to point out weaknesses in theories that contradict what they want to believe becomes their only alternative. The problem is that they are trying to use science against itself; however, since they enter the process with a bias, the approach is not at all scientific (they manipulate their interpretations to fit what they already believe to be the truth). The results of this process are lines of reasoning like the one presented in the opening post. To those that want to believe in the creationist perspective, these arguments seem sensible, logical, and scientifically valid. However, in reality they are based on misinterpretations, false logic, and sometimes downright lies. Lets take a look:

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

If there is anything certain in this world, it is that there is no evidence whatever that evolution is occurring today-that is, true vertical evolution, from some simpler kind to some more complex kind. No one has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything else of this sort.

The author clarifies evolution as “true vertical evolution”, by which he/she means macro-evolution (differentiation of species) as opposed to micro-evolution (smaller scale changes within species). Creationists do not deny that micro-evolution occurs, they can’t, just look at what we have done with dogs and cats with a few thousand years worth of selective breeding. What they fail to realize (or admit) is that macro-evolution can very well occur due to cumulative micro-evolution events. Creationists state that macro-evolution has not been observed, which is a claim that can be made based on one of the stipulations in the traditional definition of species (ability to interbreed). However, species differentiation can be observed in microorganisms, where genetic mutation occurs at a higher rate and tends to persist more commonly than in higher organisms (they reproduce asexually). The problem is that categorizing microorganism species is based on genetic similarity, which is subjective, therefore, can’t stand up to scrutiny as the sole marker for species differentiation.

The fact that macro-evolution of higher organisms has not been directly observed in no way de-legitimizes evolutionary theory. Macro-evolution occurs long periods of time. Our recorded history represents approximately 0.0001% or 1-millionth of the time that life has existed on this planet. The reason we haven’t seen it is because we were not here. For crying out loud, if man evolved from apes, then how could man observe man evolve from apes?

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

Actually, there is no evidence at all that evolution ever took place in the past.

I am not even going to waste time with this one. Anyone that believes there is no evidence for evolution is either willing to completely ignore reality, or completely un-willing to educate themselves.

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

The fossil record is one of extinction, not evolution. Numerous kinds of extinct animals are found (Dinosaurs), but never, in all the billions of fossils, is a truly incipient or transitional form found! No fossil has ever been found with half scales/half feathers, half legs, half wings, half-developed heart, half-developed eye, or any other such indicator. If evolution were true, there should be millions of transitional types among these multiplied billions of fossils-in fact, everything should show transitional features. But they do not!

Scales, feathers, hearts, and eyes are soft tissue; they are not preserved during fossilization. And there would be no chance of finding so called “half” hearts, eyes, etc. anyway. A species wouldn’t survive very well with half of a heart, and wouldn’t see very well with half of an eye would it? What you would see is a progression from simple organs to more complex. These examples do not exist in fossils, but I’ll do you one better, have a look at animals living around you. Worms have 1 chambered hearts which are basically muscular tubes. Fish have 2 chambered hearts which are basically 2 muscular tubes in a row, a divider exists in the first tube to form the 3 chambered heart of amphibians, the 3 chambered hearts in reptiles have partial dividers in the 2nd tube, if the dividers are completed you get the 4 chambered hearts of mammals. The same can be done with the eye, some simple organisms have light sensitive eye spots, which became etc., etc., etc. I can smash these animals onto rocks and call them fossils if that would satisfy anyone.

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

This fact is also confirmed by the best-proved laws of science-the law of conservation in quantity and the law of decay in complexity, or the famous First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The first Law states that in all real processes, the total quantity of matter and /or energy stays constant, even though it frequently changes form. The Second Law notes that quality of any system-its usefulness, its complexity, its information value-always tends to decrease. The First Law states that nothing is being created or evolved by present processes. The Second Law notes that there is a universal tendency for everything to disintegrate, to run down and finally die.

The fact that the author (whoever he/she is) utilized the 1st law of thermodynamics as described here shows that he/she has absolutely no concept of the theory. Evolution in no way, shape, or form even comes close to violating the Laws of mass and energy conservation. I try not to be insulting, but to say “The First Law states that nothing is being created or evolved by present processes” is just completely ignorant and idiotic! As for the 2nd Law we have covered this before, I pasted this from one of my old links:

Creationists use the theory that matter tends towards chaos with time as an argument that life could not have come into existence purely by chance (had to be created). Basically what they are doing is mis-interpreting and abusing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states:

The entropy of a closed system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Entropy can be interpreted as a measure of chaos. For instance, in a gaseous state molecules are moving around quickly and colliding with each other (high entropy, chaotic), whereas in a solid state molecules are stacked upon each other in a rigid framework (low entropy, not chaotic). Creationists get hold of this scientific theory and say, "hmm, matter tends towards chaos, so that means life can't exist without a creator because living organisms are highly organized complex systems" and they are right, when dealing with a closed system. This law only applies to closed systems (no input of matter or energy from outside the system), but the earth is not a closed system. Therefore the theory does not apply .

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

This does not prove that it did not happen in the past, but the evolutionist should recognize that evolution is not science since it is not observable. Evolution must be accepted on faith.

Evolution is an observable process, whether or not it has been observed is debatable. But either way, accepting evolutionary theory does not involve faith. Faith is required in acceptance of an idea that has no factual foundation. The evidence for evolution could fill volumes upon volumes. Besides, from a scientific standpoint, supporting evolutionary theory does not represent blind acceptance. It merely represents recognition that the theory is “by far” the best model available for explaining the existence of life on earth.

Originally Posted by JEBSTER52

If evolution did not occur in the past, and does not occur at the present, then it is entirely imaginary-not a part of the real world at all. This leaves Creation as the necessary explanation of origins.

This statement would not be true even if evolutionary theory could somehow be completely disproven. Creation requires the existence of an all-powerful supernatural deity. Inclusion of an entity such as this would introduce an infinitely complex variable that could never be investigated, and would never have any place in scientific theory (unless this deity showed up and presented itself to us). From a scientific standpoint, any theory that could possibly explain the existence of life is more plausible than creation.



Those that choose to seek truth through religion certainly have every right to do so. However, seeking validation of their beliefs through science is a fool's errand, and quite frankly detrimental to the progression of the rest of society.

[denzee]

Well done cherd.