# From the "Hide the Evidence" Files…



## Paige Turner (Dec 7, 2006)

Religious fundamentalists are pressuring Kenya's government to have its national museum move its rather comprehensive display of hominid fossils to the back room.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/061203_richard_leakey.html

Evidently they don't mesh well with the pentecostal view of the origin of our species.


----------



## Telperaca (Dec 7, 2006)

I'm from Kenya.
Born and raised there.

And I'm going there this Tuesday!! (Missing the lacst week of Uni)


----------



## Paige Turner (Dec 7, 2006)

If you get the chance, stop in at the national museum and make a big fuss over the hominid fossils, okay?


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 7, 2006)

Gee, why am I not surprised.....

Thanks for the link, Paige. *sigh* 

So, let Kenya give the collection to someplace else that isn't so boneheaded. Should solve the problem. At least that way, the fundamentalists would be happy, and those interested would have a place to to go see the fossils.

The effect on the economy? Looks like, either way, they're pretty much toast on this one. And that's sort of the price you pay for allowing pressure to hide or "de-emphasize" the evidence.

Sorry... but when it comes to religion dictating what can and can't be shown in the way of scientific evidence, my sense of humor tends to evaporate.....

EDIT: And, just to avoid any misunderstanding, the above sentiment applies in general, not only to Kenya specifically.


----------



## Pointfinder (Dec 7, 2006)

Disturbing, but not at all surprising.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Dec 7, 2006)

This is just to combat the great scientific cover-up conspiracy.
Like when they unearthed Noah's Ark and said it was some mythical ship called the "Mary Rose" - shyeah right, whatever...


----------



## Paige Turner (Dec 7, 2006)

I realize that this kind of thing has probably always gone on, but for some reason I find this case very disturbing. Concessions of common sense to appease fundamentalists really stick in my craw. 

And how did there get to be six million pentecostals in Kenya in the first place? I thought the pentecostal church was invented in Texas.


----------



## Joel007 (Dec 7, 2006)

Why didn't they just say "no"? Are they afraid of a riot?


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 19, 2006)

Paige Turner said:


> Religious fundamentalists are pressuring Kenya's government to have its national museum move its rather comprehensive display of hominid fossils to the back room.
> 
> LiveScience.com - Scientist Fights Church Effort to Hide Museum's Pre-Human Fossils
> 
> Evidently they don't mesh well with the pentecostal view of the origin of our species.


 
I don't understand what the fuss is all about? Why would this be an issue? Especially when you look at the rag newpaper thats coming from.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Dec 20, 2006)

Paige Turner said:


> And how did there get to be six million pentecostals in Kenya in the first place? I thought the pentecostal church was invented in Texas.



In answer to the first question: missionary work and churching planting, and lots of it.

And on a more historical note: Not in Texas, actually.  There were a couple of initial events, including in North Carolina and in Kansas, but the event that really introduced Pentecostalism to the US and the world was the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in April 1906 (perhaps the Great San Francisco Earthquake that occured in the same month and year, just up the coast was just a coincidence ).  It also might interest you to know that, contrary to popular stereotypes, the missionary work mentioned above is not all one-way (US to the world).  Brazilian Pentecostals (and there are a whole lot of them, so it doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of them in Kenya as well) send missionaries to the US, in just one example that I learned about when taking a world religions class at university.

As far as the topic at hand goes, I had probably best not comment for fear of violating the "no religious discussion" rule and would just get myself in trouble.  Suffice it to say that I hope the fossils remain prominently displayed and in a way that illustrates the principles of evolution.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 20, 2006)

Spartan27 said:


> I don't understand what the fuss is all about? Why would this be an issue? Especially when you look at the rag newpaper thats coming from.


 
"Rag newspaper"? Que?


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 20, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> "Rag newspaper"? Que?


 
As opposed to the New York Times, Washington Post etc, etc, etc. does that answer your question?


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 20, 2006)

littlemissattitude said:


> In answer to the first question: missionary work and churching planting, and lots of it.
> 
> And on a more historical note: Not in Texas, actually. There were a couple of initial events, including in North Carolina and in Kansas, but the event that really introduced Pentecostalism to the US and the world was the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in April 1906 (perhaps the Great San Francisco Earthquake that occured in the same month and year, just up the coast was just a coincidence ). It also might interest you to know that, contrary to popular stereotypes, the missionary work mentioned above is not all one-way (US to the world). Brazilian Pentecostals (and there are a whole lot of them, so it doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of them in Kenya as well) send missionaries to the US, in just one example that I learned about when taking a world religions class at university.
> 
> As far as the topic at hand goes, I had probably best not comment for fear of violating the "no religious discussion" rule and would just get myself in trouble. Suffice it to say that I hope the fossils remain prominently displayed and in a way that illustrates the principles of evolution.


 
Very nice post.......


----------



## mosaix (Dec 20, 2006)

Spartan27 said:


> I don't understand what the fuss is all about? Why would this be an issue? Especially when you look at the rag newpaper thats coming from.



Are you referring to The Daily Telegraph?


----------



## RyFrye (Dec 22, 2006)

Paige Turner said:


> Evidently they don't mesh well with the pentecostal view of the origin of our species.


 
What is a "pentecostal view"?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it would probably be better stated as a "christian view" since pentecostals adhere to the christian faith. They are called pentecostals because they claim to have had similar experiences to the early church mentioned in the book of Acts.
I'm just shooting for accuracy here 

*Just a side note: For whatever it is worth, would it hurt these people in Kenya to have both creation and evolution ideas present in the museum? Both views are theories that require a certain amount of faith anyway. I would argue that the masses (at least in the states) don't hold strictly to one or the other. Most have a faith that mixes the two more or less. Some don't even know their faith is mixed between creation ideas and evolution ideas...


----------



## Joel007 (Dec 22, 2006)

They should have a chaos theory exhibit which features a case with the glass all smashed  
Usually the big objections to evolutionary theory are when the theory is presented as fact. Of course, it could be true, but stating as fact something which hasn't been proven is asking for a shouting match


----------



## RyFrye (Dec 22, 2006)

Joel007 said:


> Usually the big objections to evolutionary theory are when the theory is presented as fact.


 
Bingo!

I wonder if that is how it is presented in this museum?


----------



## Joel007 (Dec 22, 2006)

> "The Christian community here is very uncomfortable that Leakey and his group want their theories presented as fact,"


 
Apparently it is, at least in their opinion. Although I disagree with his next statement about christianity not believing that we evolved from apes. 
Where in the bible does it discredit the idea? I think its ludicrous, and it takes more faith to believe we're here by random chance, but then God can do what he likes with his creations, and if he wants to make them progressive, that's up to him. Why argue about what can't be proven?


----------



## RyFrye (Dec 22, 2006)

Joel007 said:


> Although I disagree with his next statement about christianity not believing that we evolved from apes.


 
Unfortunately, literalists (usually fundamentalists) who interpret scriptures don't think that it is possible...
I say my God is capable of anything...but I am not willing to argue the point with arrogant fundamentalists. There are very few teachings/theologies in the christian faith that are clear cut in the scriptures...and yet believers hold to these ideas and traditions as though they are 

I guess that's what we get for having televangilists on our air-waves...hehe


----------



## Enadil Moonweaver (Dec 22, 2006)

God is very capable of anything. However what he chooses to do is up to him NOT his people. This makes me very, very, sad, Fundementalists totally don't understand anything scientific.  Nor accept the fact that God may have been creating more things longer than any can imagine. I am sad that these so called people of God want to hide his work. They should be ashamed of themselves.

**sighs** sorry for the rant. In any case those people are nutcases and shouldn't even be alllowed near God's work. My 2 cents of the conversation over and out.


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 2, 2007)

what I find interesting about this topic is that we end up talking about evolution...a theory that is loosely held together. I don't want to get into a debate on this but purely from a *scientific point of view* this is most probably the most *illogical theory to date*.

There is no way...we current day humans evolved from apes. Has anyone here counted the number of chromosones in primates (apes) vs. humans? They don't match, nor will they ever match. In addition, apes have not evolved from their current status...(at least not the last 50 million years!!! as evidenced by fossil finds!!!!). 

Known Evolutionary mechanisms take 10"s of millions of years if not hundreds. And this is with dynamic ambiet conditions to add to the equation. The reason that this theory can't apply to humans is based on when the earliest know human civilization has been found. with no direct correlation to the known civilizations. and will crumble away is the fact the genetic science is uncovering these facts as we speak. The scary question will be, from where did we ACTUALY come from? In my opinion, this is something we humans are not ready to comtemplate as of yet.

The reason this theory (evolution) came about was to bash i.e. counter the religous concept of where man came from at that period in time.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 2, 2007)

Spartan -- again I ask for _sources_. Every single source I've seen supports evolution, over and over again. I'm afraid that each of your statements here is not supported by the scientific evidence. If you've something contrary to bring to the table, I'd be interested in seeing it.

As for the mechanisms of evolution taking "tens of millions of years if not hundreds" -- what about periodicity? There are points in the evidence when there is a radical change in _very_ short periods. And religion as a concept has been around since the early philosophers; it was only with the knowledge gained (in areas such as geology, zoology, comparative anatomy, etc.) over the intervening period that enabled us, in the 17th through the 19th centuries to piece together the proofs adequately; so to claim that it was cobbled together to bash the religious views of the time simply doesn't hold up.....

In essence, nearly every point you make in your post is off the mark; but, again I ask, for the sake of genuine debate: if you've good, sound sources for any of these claims, please bring them forward. Until then, I see no reason to disregard the (literally) mountains of evidence in support of evolution for something with no apparent scientific backing at all....


----------



## Hawkshaw_245 (Jan 2, 2007)

Don't scientists know that BOOKS are EVIL?

Sheesh!!!

Believing in dinosaurs, cavemen, or evolution doesn't mean you're in league with Lucifer.

If God(s) intended for us to be ignorant, then he wouldn't have given us large brains and opposable thumbs, would he?


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 2, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Spartan -- again I ask for _sources_. Every single source I've seen supports evolution, over and over again. I'm afraid that each of your statements here is not supported by the scientific evidence. If you've something contrary to bring to the table, I'd be interested in seeing it.
> 
> As for the mechanisms of evolution taking "tens of millions of years if not hundreds" -- what about periodicity? There are points in the evidence when there is a radical change in _very_ short periods. And religion as a concept has been around since the early philosophers; it was only with the knowledge gained (in areas such as geology, zoology, comparative anatomy, etc.) over the intervening period that enabled us, in the 17th through the 19th centuries to piece together the proofs adequately; so to claim that it was cobbled together to bash the religious views of the time simply doesn't hold up.....
> 
> In essence, nearly every point you make in your post is off the mark; but, again I ask, for the sake of genuine debate: if you've good, sound sources for any of these claims, please bring them forward. Until then, I see no reason to disregard the (literally) mountains of evidence in support of evolution for something with no apparent scientific backing at all....


 
You ask me for my source yet where are yours. JD this is a theory. It's called the theory of evolution for a reason, because it has yet to be proven. And it won't be proven (i.e. how many years now have passed since the introduction of this theory). There is much information both scientific and other, that have begun the process of moving away from this theory (through genetic information/science). So what you are saying is 48 chromosones vs. 46 is not enough scientific evidence against the theory of evolution? Surely you are kidding. Mainstream science will try to hold onto this tidy theory for as long as possible. As with the big bang theory. If you ask me, these two theories have done more harm to our development of understanding who and where and what we are than anything else. The moutains of evidence you are speaking about all come from the same place, the same static thought process. I am not taking a shot at you, just take a step back and analyze the situation and ask questions. I can come up with literally 10's of questions that the evolutionists cannot answer. Sorry, but I believe the mistery of mankind goes a bit further than some hundred or so year old theory. It's amazing that we haven't evolved yet to really figure out and find the missing link. A link that never really existed in the first place.

You can take a shot at me and say I have no proof of this or that, but the biggest "thing" with no proof is the theory of evolution itself (it's just a theory please remember that).


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 2, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Spartan -- again I ask for _sources_. Every single source I've seen supports evolution, over and over again. I'm afraid that each of your statements here is not supported by the scientific evidence. If you've something contrary to bring to the table, I'd be interested in seeing it.
> 
> As for the mechanisms of evolution taking "tens of millions of years if not hundreds" -- what about periodicity? There are points in the evidence when there is a radical change in _very_ short periods. And religion as a concept has been around since the early philosophers; it was only with the knowledge gained (in areas such as geology, zoology, comparative anatomy, etc.) over the intervening period that enabled us, in the 17th through the 19th centuries to piece together the proofs adequately; so to claim that it was cobbled together to bash the religious views of the time simply doesn't hold up.....
> 
> In essence, nearly every point you make in your post is off the mark; but, again I ask, for the sake of genuine debate: if you've good, sound sources for any of these claims, please bring them forward. Until then, I see no reason to disregard the (literally) mountains of evidence in support of evolution for something with no apparent scientific backing at all....


 
You asked for some "sources" here are some points below:

Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are: 

There is no adequate explanation for the _origin of life_ from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
The _fossil record_, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.
*Origin of life:* 

Origin of Life Overview
Origin of Life: the Early Atmosphere
Origin of Life: Constructing the Building Blocks
Origin of Life: Constructing the Proteins
Origin of Life: Biological Systems
Origin of Life: the Living Cell
*The fossil record:* 

Fossil Record Overview - Missing Transitional Forms
*The origin of man in the fossil record:*
Early Man Fossils are Contemporaries!
Early Man Vocabulary
Early Man: Australopithecines
Early Man Fossils: KNM-ER 1470
Early Man Fossils: KP 271
Early Man: Lucy
Early Man: Neanderthal Man
Early Man: Homo Erectus
Early Man: Java Man
Early Man: Piltdown Man
Early Man: Nebraska Man
Early Man Summary

Go to Creation Science home page


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 2, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> You asked for some "sources" here are some points below:
> 
> Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:
> 
> ...


 
And more......

*Early Man Fossils are Contemporaries!*

When the fossil evidence is viewed from a creationist's point of view, the major classes of fossils are found to exist at the same time and also some at the same places. Instead of having an orderly progression from lower primates to man, where one species changes into another, we find contemporaries, contradicting the theory of evolution with regard to man. 
*SAME TIME:* 
Consider the following: 

Modern humans have existed for 4.5 million years, which is before the australopithecines existed by the evolutionists time scale.
Homo erectus maintains the same appearance over its two million year history (again, the evolutionary time scale)
Modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. There is no trend for robust forms evolving into more gracile forms. In the case of Neanderthals and archaic Homo sapiens, the more robust forms are the more recent.
Homo habilis and Homo erectus are contemporaries; no evolution here.
Humans appear in the fossil record as already human. By virtue of being human contemporaries, the Australopithecines are disqualified as human ancestors. (Lubenow, 1992, 178-179)
At the bottom of Bed I in the Olduvai gorge is a circular stone structure 14 ft. in diameter made by humans, similar to those in use today by the Okombambi tribe of Southwest Africa. That means true humans were around 2 million years ago by the evolutionist's time scale, before Homo erectus and the Australopithecines (Lubenow, 1992, 172-173). 

Evolutionists resist these conclusions. Fossils of KNM-ER 1470, KP 271 (Human elbow), Laetoli (human) footprints are attributed to other species. *SAME PLACE:* 
Many of the fossils were found in the same locality and at the same stratigraphic level (depth in the Earth), but according to the theory of evolution they should be separated by vast amounts of time. We find modern Homo sapien fossils being found with Neanderthals, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. This problem, for evolutionists, is independent of the dating schemes (Lubenow, 1992, 180-181). 

And more.........

*Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".* 

_It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved._ 
"All the `information' for the development of each particular organism was already `encoded' in the DNA of its parent. They must reproduce `after their kinds'." ([18], p.25)
"There are great numbers of `genes' (or DNA molecules) in each germ cell, and these can be arranged in various ways to permit a wide range of variation in the individual members of a basic `kind' of plant or animal, but the possible range of variation is nevertheless limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular `kind'." ([18], p.25)
"The genetic system permits a wide variety of specific features (eye color, height, shape of skull, etc.) within the limits of a particular kind. These characteristics vary in accordance with the Mendelian laws of heredity. Depending on factors such as possible isolation and inbreeding, some of these characteristics become fixed and a definite `race' established."
"Although the number of varieties or races that may be established from an original kind is undoubtedly quite large, it is clear that there are definite limits to this or even speciation has no true evolutionary significance. New varieties are established, but not new kinds." ([18], p.26)
"For example, all the different races of dogs are simply variations and changes within the genetic boundaries of the dog kind. Although there is ample evidence of changes within kinds such as the various races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., there has never been observed any changes across kinds, such as, for example, a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a cow; such changes are not possible since a dog does not have the information in its genes to become a cat...It is the various distribution and recombination of genes which ultimately produce the variations and physiological differences that we find within a family unit, race, or natural species." ([22], p.7)
In light of these facts, evolutionists have turned to mutations (small, random and almost always harmful changes in the genetic code) in the gene pool to explain their theory, "The general picture of how evolution works is now clear. The basic raw material is the mutant gene. Among these mutations most will be deleterious, but a minority will be beneficial. These few will be retained...". James F. Crow, a modern leader for evolution. ([19], p.47) Two problems with claiming mutations to be the source of positive change are as follows: "an accumulation of literally millions of such micro mutations would be necessary to change one basic `kind' of plant or animal into another" and "an even more serious difficulty is the fact that practically all observed mutations are harmful, and usually even fatal, to the creature experiencing them. Truly beneficial mutations are so rarely observed, and even these are so questionable, as to leave their very existence still in doubt. Even evolutionary geneticists readily acknowledge that 99.9% of all observed mutations are harmful." ([18], p.27-28)
Mutation are small, random, and harmful or at best neutral to the organism, and rare. All four of these characteristics make mutations impossible to bringing evolutionary change. Any change that is random, because it is done to a highly ordered organism, will be harmful or neutral. A random change done to a wristwatch will not improve the watch. It will harm it or at very best, be neutral to it. An earthquake does not develop a city, it brings destruction to it. ([22], p.7 and [18], p.27)
"Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation." ([11], p.32)
"But, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a beneficial mutation might occur; still the fact remains that for every beneficial mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones so that the net effect, or result, over time will be that the harmful mutations always win and will ultimately cause the organism, or even species, to degenerate or die." ([22], p.8)
"...mutations are incapable of producing evolution because they can only alter and effect the existing structure of genes: they cannot create new genetic material or new genetic potential."
"...only mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger, her baby would not, as a result, be born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring." ([22], p.9)
Survival of the fittest is a given but it only explains how an organism survived not how it evolved. Survival of the fittest is natural preservation not natural selection (evolution). ([22], p.11)
Put another way, in regard to mutations, we can say, "Species avoid genetic deterioration due to natural attrition among the genetically unfit. Darwinists claim that the same force of attrition has a building effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and gradually craft its descendants...to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans." ([11], p.16)
Breeding reproduces those animals with desired features. It is not evolution of the specimens. It is also within kind not crossing kinds, and all changes through breeding are lost after just a few generations. Breeding also, of course, cannot produce new genetic material or the potential for such. Cloning is the artificial stimulation of mitosis (cell division). It is not the creation of life. ([4], p.37)
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true." ([19], p.35)
"...an excess inflow of `ordering energy' into the system from outside may cause it temporarily to grow and become more highly organized. Thus...a child may grow into an adult, or men may build a structure. But each of these, and all other illustrations of apparent decrease in entropy, are only local and temporary.""Negative entropy (is required) for its maintenance." ([18], p.46)
A seed, for example, being genetically complete, provides the negative entropy for the growth of a tree.
Regarding the first law of thermodynamics (stating that a constant amount of energy is maintained) it is observed, "...all matter in the universe is some form of energy...(and) the total amount of energy in the universe always remains constant (or the same), and, therefore, energy itself is neither destroyed (that is, reduced to nothing) or created from nothing by any natural process. ([19], p.32)
These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible. ([18], p.46)
Regarding the validity of the laws, we note, "These laws are based upon more evidence than any other principles in science. They have been confirmed by countless thousands of experiments on systems ranging in size from the nuclear to the astronomic, and there is no known exception to either of them."
It is noted that the `urge' to evolve is not at all found in chemistry. ([4], p.357)
In light of all of these scientific objections to natural selection, perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory since he asserted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 2, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> And more......
> 
> *Early Man Fossils are Contemporaries!*
> 
> ...


 
And more.....

*Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.* 

_Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating together by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life. Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing. This is a logical absurdity. Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world._ 
"The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech." ([11], p.102)
"The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order." ([22], p.15)
"...the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop!" ([22], p.15)
"...research has tended to widen rather than to narrow the gap that exists between organic and inorganic matter." ([4], p.373)
"The Law of biogenesis...declares that life must come from life but evolutionists ignore the law by stating that sometime in the past during, supposedly, the early history of the earth, there were processes and conditions that allowed for life to originate from non-life. This, of course, is unproven and an unprovable assumption." ([22], p.14 5)
We find that the same elements that supposedly created life in the beginning still exist today. Why can't they then produce life again? ([4], p.373)
The cell principle, excepted in Biology and all science, states that all cells come from only pre-existing cells.
We certainly observe that life does not derive from non-life now.
Life is more than the sum of its parts. This may be why, at least in part, science cannot define life. It can only give the characteristics of living things.
Darwin wrote, "The first appearance of new beings...is a mystery of mysteries."
All the matter we see, the sun and so forth, are said by evolutionists to have begun by a mixture of gases in the atmosphere. But, from where did the gases come and where did even the space for them come? Science cannot account for something coming from nothing (and neither can common sense account for it) and this is not to even mention the complexity of matter which even adds to this absurdity. In fact, as mentioned, when you have nothing, you do not even have the space for the something that is to come from it.
In addition, without the sun, etc., there would be no gravity. Therefore, those supposed gases from which all things supposedly come would simply disseminate into space not draw together to form anything.
Morality is generally accepted as a distinct characteristic of humanity. This in itself creates an unbridgeable gap between people and animals.
Famous evolutionist Roger Lewin proclaimed of the gap between people and animals, "Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values -- each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature. Together they are seen to give us `dominion over nature'. He adds that for evolutionists this gap is an "embarrassment, something to be explained away." ([15], p.22)
Alfred Russell Wallace, considered to be the co-inventor with Darwin of natural selection was said to have "Found this argument (natural selection) convincing until he attempted to explain the advanced state of human faculties." ([15], p.26)
Regarding people's intellectual powers and moral sense among other things, Wallace also asserted that these "could not have been developed by variation and natural selection alone, and..., therefore, some other influence, law, or agency is required to account for them." ([11], p.310) He also concluded, "...a superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction, and for a special purpose." ([15], p.26)
Wallace along with famous evolutionist Robert Broom concluded "Divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the qualities that made Homo Sapiens so special." ([15], p.26)
Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: "Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative." "Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative." "Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative." "On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative." ([19], p.362)
We find human's dominance over animals as utter and complete making a common ancestry virtually impossible. Wallace and Broom asserted, "The whole purpose, the only raison d'etre (reason for being) of the world...was the development of the human spirit with the human body." ([15], p.26)
Broom asserted, "Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in (and therefore)...the evolution of man must have been planned by some spiritual power." ([14], p.42)
Regarding the 99% similarity chemically to apes figure, why is our dominion over the apes so extensive if the 99% is so significant?
Perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory had he realized these three gaps in the order of living things. He stated, "I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." ([10], p.33)


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 2, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> There is no way...we current day humans evolved from apes.



Evolution does not claim now, nor has it ever claimed, that humans evolved from apes.  It does teach that apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor.  There is a huge difference there.



> There is no adequate explanation for the _origin of life_ from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.



Questions of the origin of life and questions of evolution are two separate and distinct disucssions.

One concern I have about the evidence presented here by you, Spartan, is that I could find nothing in your links that set out the qualifications of the individuals who prepared the information presented there.  There is, the "Who Are We" section a claim that they are "engineers and professionals with graduate degrees".  As far as I am aware, engineers are not trained biologists.  There is no further information about what other professions these individuals practice.  If any of them are biologists, why don't they say so?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe in creation as set forth in the book of Genesis in the Bible (although you should be aware that that book actually presents two different and pretty much mutually exclusive versions of the creation within the first two chapters of that book).  Just be very careful when you try to claim that there is scientific evidence for those stories.  Because so far I've never seen any credible, objective evidence to support the Genesis accounts.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 3, 2007)

Unfortunately, Spartan, I note that your references here are (with one exception) "Young Earth" creationists and, even accepting them as valid (the scientific community certainly doesn't) your arguments posted rest on a very small number of people, most of whom are not accredited in the fields concerned (some, for example, are hydrologists, others mathematicians, etc.): Duane Gish, Michael Denton, M. Bowden, and so on. All of these arguments have been dealt with _ad infinitum_ by the scientific community ... and found wanting.

For a look at the opposing side, I suggest the following:

An Index to Creationist Claims

for general, brief commentary with plenty of citations, for any of the points. Also, I'd suggest you look up the following:

*Science and Creationism*, Ashley Montague, editor, Oxford University Press. (Not only does it have a variety of essays from various scientists in various fields but, if you are interested, it has copious references that would take several years to go through)

There are several others I could cite at this point, but these should be easily obtainable, and provide an enormous number of citations by various scientists and scientific writers in a number of fields, and a great number of them directly address the points you've brought in above. *Science and Creationism*, containing essays from a number of researchers in the field, is particularly helpful.


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 3, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Unfortunately, Spartan, I note that your references here are (with one exception) "Young Earth" creationists and, even accepting them as valid (the scientific community certainly doesn't) your arguments posted rest on a very small number of people, most of whom are not accredited in the fields concerned (some, for example, are hydrologists, others mathematicians, etc.): Duane Gish, Michael Denton, M. Bowden, and so on. All of these arguments have been dealt with _ad infinitum_ by the scientific community ... and found wanting.
> 
> For a look at the opposing side, I suggest the following:
> 
> ...


 
JD, you asked where are my references and I provided some. I can go on and on with many more references with some from the "mainstream" community. The most information is coming from the genetics sector on this.

Also there was a post that stated we didn't evolve from apes rather we had a common "thing" that both apes and humans evolved from. This is simply impossible. And if that were true then apes and humans would have the same number of chromosones. You can't have evolution and then change your chromosone count (for the base specicies and the one which came from the base)...please show me one (1) case where this is found in nature?????  JD I can answer that for you...you won't be able to find it, cause it doesn't exist, not in plants, not in germs, not in animals etc...etc...etc....


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 3, 2007)

littlemissattitude said:


> Evolution does not claim now, nor has it ever claimed, that humans evolved from apes. It does teach that apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor. There is a huge difference there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Little miss, can you show me or can you quote me on where I was specifically talking about the bible, and/or Genesis? As you state I am doing? I was not. You are assuming.

I am talking about *genetics (which will eventually help us understand who, what we are and where we came from)!* 

I take exception with your tone...I just think "you people" want to argue that Christanity Issue again since you or your side clearly did not win the debat.


----------



## RyFrye (Jan 3, 2007)

littlemissattitude said:


> (although you should be aware that that book actually presents two different and pretty much mutually exclusive versions of the creation within the first two chapters of that book)


 
All heated depating aside ......Could you expound on this subject? I am interested to learn what you mean by this.

p.s.- please don't misunderstand my asking...I don't want a debate. I just want to learn.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 3, 2007)

RyFrye...not wanting to get into this too deeply, because as a rule we don't really discuss religious topics much around here (Brian has   another site for that).  But, since you asked...The first chapter of Genesis, and through the third verse of the second chapter, the first account of creation and probably the most commonly known account, has the universe created in six days, followed by a day of rest.  Day and night (or, light and darkness), first day; heaven separated from earth, second day; land, seas, plants, third day; sun, moon, and stars, fourth day; fish and birds, fifth day; terrestrial animals, including humans, sixth day.  The rest of chapter two tells a separate story, in which the heavens and the earth are created.  Man is formed "from the dust of the ground".  Then plants are created.  After that, animals are created in an attempt to find a companion for the man he made, but none of them are suitable, so god puts the man to sleep, takes one of his ribs and from that makes a woman.  As you can see, there are several divergences between the two stories, not the least of which is an absence in the second version of any concrete reference to how long the creation took.

Spartan...I apologize for misapprehending what you were referring to.  It was a natural mistake, though, considering that the links in your posts seemed to me to be specifically Biblical in nature, considering some of the sources and experts they refer to.

If you are not positing a deity...Christian or otherwise...as creator or designer, though, I would be interested in your take on who the entity/entities that did the designing and creating is/was.  The only viable alternative I can think of offhand are extraterrestrials.  Which is fair, I suppose, since I believe (without any concrete scientific evidence so far, so it is just a belief) that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe.  In that case, however, I would assume that you are talking only of the origin and creation of life on Earth.  Unless, of course, you are positing numerous universes, so that whoever did the creating was outside our universe and created it from there.  Not a completely unknown theory, of course, as it has been treated by science fiction in a number of cases.  One I can think of is _Cosm_ (by Gregory Benford, if I remember correctly), which I have reviewed for the Chronicles.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 3, 2007)

Spartan: If you could supply the sources on the genetics aspect, I would appreciate that. I've not seen any of this, and would be very interested in looking into it. Thanks.

And I would have assumed the same as LMA, given the sources cited as they are nearly all, in one way or another, connected to the Institute for Creation Research (albeit I note that one or two have now requested their names be removed from its rolls); and the institute has been proven time and again to be driven by a Biblical, rather than scientific, agenda -- public statements to the contrary notwithstanding. So I don't think it was really that uncalled-for an assumption. A broader basis of source-material may help to prevent such confusion in future....

In the meantime, I suggest we keep cooler heads, folks. The evolution/creation/intelligent design/etc. debate has been an ongoing process for a very long time, and isn't likely to stop anytime soon. So let's try to not get _too_ het up here, as that damages fruitful debate.


----------



## RyFrye (Jan 4, 2007)

littlemissattitude said:


> RyFrye...not wanting to get into this too deeply, because as a rule we don't really discuss religious topics much around here (Brian has another site for that). But, since you asked...The first chapter of Genesis, and through the third verse of the second chapter, the first account of creation and probably the most commonly known account, has the universe created in six days, followed by a day of rest. Day and night (or, light and darkness), first day; heaven separated from earth, second day; land, seas, plants, third day; sun, moon, and stars, fourth day; fish and birds, fifth day; terrestrial animals, including humans, sixth day. The rest of chapter two tells a separate story, in which the heavens and the earth are created. Man is formed "from the dust of the ground". Then plants are created. After that, animals are created in an attempt to find a companion for the man he made, but none of them are suitable, so god puts the man to sleep, takes one of his ribs and from that makes a woman. As you can see, there are several divergences between the two stories, not the least of which is an absence in the second version of any concrete reference to how long the creation took.


 

Thank you LMA! I appreciate your in depth and timely response.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 5, 2007)

For an alternative view to some of those expressed here can I suggest a couple of links:

The ICR Cult's "Back to Genesis" Scam

and

Refuting Creationism

With the second link scroll down for most of the information.


----------



## RyFrye (Jan 5, 2007)

mosaix said:


> For an alternative view to some of those expressed here can I suggest a couple of links:
> 
> The ICR Cult's "Back to Genesis" Scam
> 
> ...


 

Thank you Mosaix. I love learning!


----------



## mosaix (Jan 5, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> Also there was a post that stated we didn't evolve from apes rather we had a common "thing" that both apes and humans evolved from. This is simply impossible. And if that were true then apes and humans would have the same number of chromosones. You can't have evolution and then change your chromosone count (for the base specicies and the one which came from the base)...please show me one (1) case where this is found in nature?????  JD I can answer that for you...you won't be able to find it, cause it doesn't exist, not in plants, not in germs, not in animals etc...etc...etc....



See the following link:

CB141: Differing chromosome numbers

If you don't want to look it up, I quote:

"The plant genus    _Clarkia_, for example, has species with chromosome counts of n = 5,  6,    7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 26 (Lewis 1993).  Chromosome counts in    the house mouse species (_Mus domesticus_) range from 2n = 22 to 40    (Nachman et al. 1994)."


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 5, 2007)

mosaix said:


> See the following link:
> 
> CB141: Differing chromosome numbers
> 
> ...


 
Close but no cigar..lookup chromosone complement...*those have been reclassied as differing species....not the same species, including the rat/mouse that was just discovered this past summer in Greece (of all places). Again...nice try. Also, that source you quote is a notorious anticreationist source.*


----------



## mosaix (Jan 6, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> *Also, that source you quote is a notorious anticreationist source.*




_ An interesting comment._ 

So what? I was just pointing out an alternative viewpoint, another source of information for the discussion.

Both sides of the discussion deserve to be aired (including yours) without doubting motive.

Regarding the reclassification of Clarkia and Mus domesticus, evidence please. Even if it comes from a *notorious creationist source.*


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 12, 2007)

Rather than starting a new thread, I thought this might be an appropriate place to put this one:

Fossil skull, artifact, help date human migration - Yahoo! News

Just in case the link goes down, the story is titled "Fossil skull, artifact, help date human migration", it is from Reuters, by Maggie Fox, and is datelined Thurs., Jan. 11, 2007.



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An ancient skull from South Africa and carved tools and ornaments from Russia paint a rare picture of the time when modern humans migrated out of Africa to colonize Europe, researchers reported on Thursday.
> 
> The two reports in the journal Science link the far reaches of Europe to southernmost Africa across a short time span of 36,000 years ago to 45,000 years ago.
> 
> ...


 
That last paragraph is of especial interest here, I think, because it agrees with the other figures I've seen. Spartan, I'm not sure where that figure of modern humans dating back to over 4 million years comes from, but I've never seen anything of the sort. The furthest back I've ever seen was roughly 0.5 million years ago ... a far cry from being contemporaries with the earlier strains you mention. And, if you'll look at a chart showing the evolution of the human species, I think you'll find that there's a huge gap between the statements you quote and those accepted by the scientific community.

As for abiogenesis or protogenesis, you might want to look up the evidence on that as published in peer-reviewed journals ("creation science" papers don't tend to get published in journals that require peer review for the very good reason that the "science" they posit simply doesn't hold up under rigid scrutiny). One quick way to see what was going on even as far back as 20 years ago would be to pick up the book I mentioned before, Science and Creationism, and look at the chapter on "Creationism and Evolutionary Protogenesis" ... it gets rather technical, but it's quite informative, and features a tremendous amount of references, should you choose to look further.

Here's a couple of sites to give an "at-a-glance" idea of the actual evolutionary timeline:

Human evolution - A look at human origins through species profiles and hominid imagery

Hominid Species

As stated in the latter: "Modern forms of _Homo sapiens_ first appear about 195,000 years ago."

As you can see, modern humans actually only occupy a very tiny space in the picture; by no means were they contemporaries with either afarensis or anamensis, and only marginally with heidelbergensis...

And on the subject of primate evolution in general:

Early Primate Evolution:  The First Primates

And, to clarify about some of the other points:

Early Primate Evolution:  How Old is Old?

As said in other threads, it's the weight of the evidence that makes the difference; and there's more than enough evidence to support evolution over other origins for the human species....


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 16, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Rather than starting a new thread, I thought this might be an appropriate place to put this one:
> 
> Fossil skull, artifact, help date human migration - Yahoo! News
> 
> ...


 

Here are some facts below you may want to ponder:


*Evolution vs. Creation: The Great Debate*
The Evolution vs. Creation debate is often referred to as the "Great Debate." It's the emotion-packed question of "Origins" -- why, how, and where did everything come from? 20th century science has made the compelling discovery that, at some point, the universe began. Both sides of the Great Debate now agree that the universe has not existed eternally. However, this is where the agreement ends. As far as the "why" and "how" of the "origin event," this is where the division and contention begin. There are two basic theories in this Great Debate. The first is the historical default - the Creation Model of Origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design permeating all things implies a Designer. The second theory is the more recent, atheistic explanation - the Evolution Model of Origins. This theory postulates that the intricate design permeating all things is a product of random chance and excessive time. 
*Evolution vs. Creation: The Contentions*
Evolution vs. Creation is indeed the Great Debate of our scientific times. In any scientific debate, the theories must be tested according to the evidence. We propose that the burden of evidence should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years. Of course, Evolutionists, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists. Evolutionists reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria. We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind. Furthermore, the mathematical and physical laws inherent in all things (including, most dramatically, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect) effectively validate this evidentiary claim. 
*Evolution vs. Creation: Origins*
In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. *This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics.* Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data. 
*Evolution vs. Creation: Complexity*
The Evolution vs. Creation debate further seeks to solve the riddle of complexity. Creationists believe the universe was designed to be complex by an Intelligent Designer. Evolutionists, in their effort to exclude a designer, contend that complexity has developed from simplicity over time. Evolutionists view time as their solution. However, hard science tells us that time is the enemy of complexity. This fact has been so well documented that it has obtained the stature of a physical law, the "Second Law of Thermodynamics." 
*Evolution vs. Creation: The Resolution*
Evolution vs. Creation -- Until Evolutionists find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern Evolutionary movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all. Creation is the default. Evolutionists insist that complexity developed from simplicity despite the contradiction to known physical laws. Moreover, Evolutionists maintain that this simplicity just sprang into existence without any cause at all. Let's collect the evidence, and then we can start a debate. 

Please read the above carefully and then look at the text in blue font color.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 17, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> Here are some facts below you may want to ponder:


 
Spartan: These are not _facts_, but _opinions_ (often completely misrepresenting "the evolutionists" views and/or actions) and often couched in "loaded" language. They are also almost all answered in some of the sources I've cited before, in my last few posts. There are other sites that go into each of these in great detail, and I will try to track a few down. Essentially, however, there is nothing new here, and nothing that has not been addressed countless times and refuted over and over again, both in print and in court cases involving the teaching of creationism and/or intelligent design.



> *Evolution vs. Creation: The Great Debate*
> The Evolution vs. Creation debate is often referred to as the "Great Debate." It's the emotion-packed question of "Origins" -- why, how, and where did everything come from? 20th century science has made the compelling discovery that, at some point, the universe began. Both sides of the Great Debate now agree that the universe has not existed eternally.


 
Well, no, that's not quite the case. The universe has not existed _in its present state_ eternally (a word that scientists tend to avoid using because of the muddiness of the concept and the fact that it has long been used for religious rather than scientific argument). I've yet to see a single scientist who claims that the universe "exploded from nothing", as claimed in one of your entries here. A rather quick and simple view of the Big Bang can be seen here:

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This refutes _that_ claim within the first sentence. And, once again, this view did not win immediate acceptance, but had to await evidence via observation and repeated testing.



> However, this is where the agreement ends. As far as the "why" and "how" of the "origin event," this is where the division and contention begin. There are two basic theories in this Great Debate. The first is the historical default - the Creation Model of Origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design permeating all things implies a Designer. The second theory is the more recent, atheistic explanation - the Evolution Model of Origins. This theory postulates that the intricate design permeating all things is a product of random chance and excessive time.


 
Again, not "random chance"... nowhere have I seen a scientist claim that one either. Rather, it is the result of the structure of matter itself, physical properties that are, by and large, both observable, testable, and subject to mathematical prediction. As to what "excessive time" is supposed to be -- "excessive" by what standard? And one should note the pejorative use of "atheistic" above. Again, loaded terminology rather than genuine evidence.



> *Evolution vs. Creation: The Contentions*
> Evolution vs. Creation is indeed the Great Debate of our scientific times. In any scientific debate, the theories must be tested according to the evidence. We propose that the burden of evidence should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years.


 
Granted. The burden of evidence is indeed on any "new" theory. Evolution has, as I've commented above, mountains of evidence in support of it, evidence that has been tested (and continues to be tested) repeatedly, and subject to peer review; something "intelligent design" and "creation science" does not.

As for creation being the "historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years" (or, as stated further down, 150 years) ... that's a highly questionable assertion on several fronts, not least being that the model of creation envisioned between different cultures differ radically, often to the point of being mutually contradictory; there is also, as I've mentioned before, the fact that the idea of life evolving from lower forms dates back at least to the Greek philosophers. There is also the fact that geocentrism was "the historic and inherent default" throughout most of history. Are we then proposing that we should also set aside Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, etc? Because a theory is set forth in earlier ages based upon the experience (including the level of refinement of instrumentation for measurement, exposure to a wider field of data, the ability to correlate information gathered by other researchers, etc.) of that period, _is no assurance of its validity_. The atom was also, until recent times, deemed indivisible, yet we know this is not the case. This can be carried on through numerous scientific fields that have had earlier models replaced by our growing knowledge, from medicine (bacteriology, blood chemistry, etc.) to geology to the advent of plate tectonics.

The test of any scientific model is whether it has experimental evidence to support it. Again, evolution does, intelligent design (creationism) does not.



> Of course, Evolutionists, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists.


 
Again, we are dealing with extremely loaded language here. No, evolutionists simply insist that the evidence be held to the rigorous standards of any scientific evidence before it be admitted as a valid model. Again, evolutionary evidence is (and, as I've said repeatedly, is subject to considerable peer review, which tends to be extremely stringent, before being accepted). "Creation Science" is not put through this process, and any demands that it be so have been met with evasion, misstatement, cries of discrimination, and smoke and mirrors in general.

These criteria are:

(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) It is falsifiable (that is, a set of conditions can be hypothesized which would prove its errancy)



> Evolutionists reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria. We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind. Furthermore, the mathematical and physical laws inherent in all things (including, most dramatically, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect) effectively validate this evidentiary claim.


 
Again, we are dealing with obfuscation rather than argument here. Evolutionists tend to leave a creator out of calculations because there is no evidence meeting the above criteria to support the existence of such. Should such evidence be forthcoming, it will be taken into account. Here we are again using a very slippery term because "mind" has never been stringently defined, any more than "soul". That which meets the commonly accepted definition of mind is, from the evidence, a function of the brain, inseparable from it and altered, damaged, or even eliminated by damage to that organ (depending on the severity of said damage), from loss of memory to alteration of basic personality. The fact that the above quote relies on electroencephelograms rather than the more recent deveopments in medical techniques dealing with brain function, is rather telling.

As for the old saw about the Second Law of Thermodymamics.... That, too, has been dealt with in numerous places, though it is something that would simply take up far too much space here. As I noted, I'll try to find the site I mentioned, as it also deals in great detail with _that_ one.



> *Evolution vs. Creation: Origins*
> In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. *This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics.* Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved.


 
On the "from nothing", see above. On lack of empircal evidence, see any competent textbook on the subject. On the matter of origins, I believe LMA answered that one earlier... but what we do know is that the evidence for the naturalistic origins of the universe as we know it continues to grow, whereas creationism's evidence has yet to be brought before the scientific community (not just evolutionists, but physicists, geologists, anthropologists, cosmologists, etc.) for rigorous scrutiny. The evidence for evolution and for the Big Bang continue to be subject to such, and to either be refined, rethought, or accepted accordingly.

And it just continues on. There's a lot of verbiage here, but no genuine argument, and certainly no evidence brought forth to support anything claimed here.

And here is the site I mentioned:

An Index to Creationist Claims

I think you'll find not only all the points you've raised in your various posts, but hundreds of others, answered here, with plenty of citations on sources to explore further.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 17, 2007)

JD - you must realise by now that this thread has no future.

In any normal discussion each side presents facts for discussion and these can be examined and accepted or rejected. But, as here, when one side only presents beliefs then the discussion can never come to a conclusion.

This is made even more difficult when the beliefs are presented in the belief that they are facts.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 18, 2007)

Mosaix: I'm afraid I agree on that point. The reason I posted (and why I took it no further) was for the sake of those who are interested in finding out the facts and how to differentiate between that and opinion offered as fact, and there are some who have expressed such an interest.

However, as there have been no posts from the other side with genuine evidence to offer, and the last site I posted pretty much covers all the various claims I've come across over the years ... I think I'll leave it at that. For those truly interested in finding out the information, that should give them more than enough to at least get a good start....


----------



## mosaix (Jan 18, 2007)

JD - I must admit that I find it hard to resist replying even if only, as you say, for the benefit of others.


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 19, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Spartan: These are not _facts_, but _opinions_ (often completely misrepresenting "the evolutionists" views and/or actions) and often couched in "loaded" language. They are also almost all answered in some of the sources I've cited before, in my last few posts. There are other sites that go into each of these in great detail, and I will try to track a few down. Essentially, however, there is nothing new here, and nothing that has not been addressed countless times and refuted over and over again, both in print and in court cases involving the teaching of creationism and/or intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

JD... the last time I checked it wasn't called the Facts of Evolution, but the Theroy of Evolution. I think that says it best...


----------



## jackokent (Jan 19, 2007)

Wow 

I can't believe this is still  going.  JD I am in awe of your posting - I am not worthy.

But wasn't this about moving stuff around in a museum?  Whatever the views expressed on this thread, surely the public has a right to see museum exhibits and make up thier own mind about history.  Surpressing / hiding exhibits is patently wrong.

I am sure that the christians on this site would be equally concerned if someone hid all the bibles in a bookshop because they didn't want shoppers to know about the theory of christianity.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 19, 2007)

The "facts" are the clear, observable data. The theory (not "the hypothesis: already tested against alternative explanations of the facts, and come out ahead) is a potential explanation of these facts. The hypothesis of single creation has never been tested, merely stated as a truth. Still, since it is faily clear from the King James translation (I apologise for not having read it in the original aramaic, or hebrew, or even the greek from which most of the english was adapted; I'm a very poor linguist) that what was created was a flat world with a moving sun, I don't live in that particular universe; and if you accept that the nomad herders who wrote the book tried to use their own terms to explain something they didn't fully understand, then you can say the same about their timescales and methology.
Certainly, the theory of evolution is continuously refined, and arguments about precise mechanisms for change break out between otherwise peace-loving biologists; this is the "scientific method" (a theory which cannot explain all avaiable observed data must be modified, or scrapped and replaced by a theory that does.) Do you notice something? this is evolution in memes, rather than in genes. And it can produce some highly competitive concepts, still containing vermiform appendicese and other, presently useless, sub concepts, that haven't yet withered and dropped off.
Anyone who thinks the second law of thermodynamics excludes evolution thinks a gas cloud is more complex than a star; but, then again, he probably doesn't believe that stars are great big things a very long way away, or that the light from them has taken tens of thousands of years to get here. That, after all implies a very big universe, and a deity in proportion, when all they really desire is a sort of super emperor, a slightly powered up version of a human.
Many cosmologists find faith in the immensity of the universe; very few of the faithful dare face that immensity, with all it says about them and their society.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 19, 2007)

As Chris notes, the facts are what the Theory of Evolution is based upon, and what it tested against. So far, the overall theory continues to hold up remarkably well (as does relativity, another thing you keep saying has fallen out of favor with the scientific community -- I've yet to see evidence of either of these being much challenged as a whole, however _some aspects_ of them may be refined).

It is also known as _Gravitational Theory_, yet I don't think you'd get very far arguing against the _fact_ of gravity. Part of the confusion may come from the general use of the term "theory" in common language as opposed to scientific terminology; in common parlance, it can mean anything from building cloud-castles to speculations based on a person's observations; in science "theory" means a model which is based upon the observed and tested evidence, while "hypothesis" is closer (though not matching exactly) what "theory" means in everyday usage; just as "space" in scientific terms means something vastly different from what it means in interpersonal relationships, or real estate, or even politics; "charge" means something different when applied to the study science of electricity (or particles) than it means when used for describing either military or economic action; and so on.

Again -- deliberate obfuscation, grasping at _words_ rather than genuine _facts_ or testable ideas. It's an old rhetorical ploy, and best summed up in the old phrase "a sound and fury signifying nothing".

As Jackokent notes, we've drifted from the original discussion (at least somewhat, though this is all related to the reasons for the controversy over the exhibition in the first place). Yes, it comes down to censorship; a desire to stifle that which challenges one's chosen view -- especially when that challenge is something that stands on testable evidentiary grounds rather than mystification, making it a _genuine_ challenge rather than a mere straw man to tilt at. Again, I come down on the side of the information being available to all, improvement in education and critical thinking so that the evidence may be evaluated intelligently, and letting people make up their own minds. To forbid or limit people's access to something because it presents something you don't like is to continue to infantilize, and we can no longer continue to do that and expect people to make viable decisions about an increasingly complex future.


----------



## Spartan27 (Mar 7, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> As Chris notes, the facts are what the Theory of Evolution is based upon, and what it tested against. So far, the overall theory continues to hold up remarkably well (as does relativity, another thing you keep saying has fallen out of favor with the scientific community -- I've yet to see evidence of either of these being much challenged as a whole, however _some aspects_ of them may be refined).
> 
> It is also known as _Gravitational Theory_, yet I don't think you'd get very far arguing against the _fact_ of gravity. Part of the confusion may come from the general use of the term "theory" in common language as opposed to scientific terminology; in common parlance, it can mean anything from building cloud-castles to speculations based on a person's observations; in science "theory" means a model which is based upon the observed and tested evidence, while "hypothesis" is closer (though not matching exactly) what "theory" means in everyday usage; just as "space" in scientific terms means something vastly different from what it means in interpersonal relationships, or real estate, or even politics; "charge" means something different when applied to the study science of electricity (or particles) than it means when used for describing either military or economic action; and so on.
> 
> ...


 
J.D. Time will tell who's correct...if I was a betting man and sitting at a texas holdem table in Las vegas...I would be all in at this point.....


----------

