FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > Religion

Greetings!

Religion Discussions on religions, mysticism, and spirituality as well as opposing views such as agnosticism and atheism.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 2.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-03-2005, 08:50 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up Scientists confirm Creationism

Creation Triumphs Over Evolution

Introduction.

Definitions are a good place to begin. What is “evolution”? When the evolution versus creation debate started in the 1800s, the ground rules were clear. At that time the issue was plain and simple. Everybody knew Genesis recorded all the cattle, creeping things and beasts of the earth reproduced “after his kind.” There was the “dog kind;” there was the “horse kind.” A “specie” was understood by all to be a “Genesis kind.” The question was—Did a one-cell living organism evolve in complexity from one Genesis kind to another Genesis kind and finally culminate in humankind? Now evolutionists have changed the rules.

They changed “specie” to refer to minute classifications of possible variation within the Genesis kind. After decades of experimentation, scientists have produced many exotic varieties of fruit flies. Each variety has been designated a “specie.” As a result, some claimed they proved evolution from one specie to another. But it remained self-evident that all the numerous varieties were still fruit flies. What they did prove was a sort of “micro-evolution” within a Genesis kind. A change from one Genesis kind to another Genesis kind—a macro-evolution—was not demonstrated. This variation within a specie, a Genesis kind, is now what is commonly referred to as “evolution” and applied to validate Darwinism. Unfortunately, most evolutionists who make these spectacular claims of evidencing evolution are the popular writers of books and articles for the general public and our schools.

Jonathan Weiner’s book, the BEAK OF THE FINCH: A STORY OF EVOLUTION IN OUR TIME, is a case in point. Weiner wrote about his time in the Galapagos Islands with two scientists who study finches. Darwin had made many of his observations on the same island. These observations became the basis of his book, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. The distinctive characteristic of what has come to be known as “Darwin’s finches” is that their beaks change up to five percent in size from time to time due to environmental changes. A New York Times book review (May 15, 1994) of Weiner’s book began by degrading Biblical creation advocates for not being aware of the overwhelming proof for evolution that had been discovered.

The review then praised Weiner for demonstrating that evolution is not just a theory about changes that occurred in the remote past, but a process that we can watch because it is going on all around us all the time. However, the ironic twist about the “Darwin's finches” saga is that Charles Darwin, who first discovered variations within the finches at the Galapagos Islands, did not himself use this beak variation factor as a proof of his evolution theory. Why? This variation was only the minimal micro-evolution changes within a fixed Genesis kind or specie. Darwin’s evolutionary theory not only requires numerous genetic changes within a Genesis kind, but an evolving from one Genesis kind to another. For example, a fish would eventually become the progenitor for a horse somewhere down the line. On the other hand, how reasonable for a master-mind Creator to design fixed classifications of specie with genetic possibilities for variation within its kind. Science validates this rigidity between true Genesis-kind specie. If evolution claims changes from one specie to another specie, the theory cannot be proved by simply redefining what a specie is!


Molecular Evidence Darwinists Confirm God Created Man

Chapter One.

With the enormous advances in biochemistry, a relatively new discipline is being developed by evolutionists. The principal molecular components of the “biological cell” are proteins—which consist of a long chain of amino acids in a specific sequence—and the molecular sequences of the DNA and RNA molecules. Different techniques are employed to measure the divergence in these molecular sequences. Accordingly, biochemists are classifying specie and larger groups by their degree of similarity at the molecular level. But the validity of these classifications so obtained is a point of controversy even among evolutionists. Darwin Caught in a Mousetrap While Darwinists were playing games with biochemistry, Michael Behe confronted them with a challenge that has left them reeling.

This greatest scientific challenge yet to Darwinism was capsulated in a Christianity Today article as follows: During the fall of 1996, a series of cultural earthquakes shook the secular world with the publication of a revolutionary new book, Michael Behe’s DARWIN’S BLACK BOX: THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION. The reviewer in the New York Times book review praised Behe’s deft analogies and delightfully whimsical style, and took sober note of the book’s radical challenge to Darwinism. Newspapers and magazines from Vancouver to London, including Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, and several of the world’s leading scientific journals, reported strange tremors in the world of evolutionary biology. The Chronicle of Higher Education, a weekly newspaper read primarily by university professors and administrators, did a feature story on the author two months after his book appeared. The eye-catching headline read, “A Biochemist Urges Darwinists to Acknowledge the Role Played by an Intelligent Designer.”

(1) With his book realizing multiple printings, Behe is popular on the university-speaking circuit. In a typical lecture, Behe projects on a screen his favorite quote by Darwin from THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (2) Behe takes on Darwin’s challenge by asking, “What type of biological system could not be formed by ‘numerous, successive, slight modifications’? Well, for starters, a system that has a quality that I call irreducible complexity.”(3) Next, Behe flashes on the screen his hallmark illustration of “irreducible complexity”—a mousetrap! After observing that all five parts of the trap are simultaneously essential for performance, Behe adds: You need all the parts to catch a mouse. You can’t catch a few mice with a platform, then add the spring and catch a few more, and then add the hammer and improve its function. All the parts must be there to have any function at all. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. (4) Next Behe explores the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems. He describes the chemical chain reaction that gives rise to vision, details the elegant but complex structure of the whip-like cilium with which many kinds of cells are equipped, and then observes the extremely complicated mechanism by which blood is formed (see Appendix).

Behe’s logical and eloquent conclusions are summarized: To Darwin, the cell was a “black box”—its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin’s test to that ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin’s theory has “absolutely broken down.” (5) With that observation of cell complexity, Darwin is caught in Behe’s mousetrap! Behe presses his point further: As you search the professional literature of the last several decades looking for articles that have been published even attempting to explain the possible Darwinian step-by-step origin of any of the systems, you will encounter a thundering silence. Absolutely no one—not one scientist—has published any detailed proposal or explanation of the possible evolution of any such complex biochemical system. And when a science does not publish, it ought to perish.

(6) Behe’s only conclusion is that everywhere we look inside the cell, evidence is staring scientists in the face that suggests the systems were directly designed by an intelligent agent. The only answer mustered by evolutionists to Behe is: You’re giving up too soon. Biochemistry is in its infancy. These systems were discovered just 20 or 30 years ago. Within the next few years, we may begin to figure out how all these systems evolved. Behe’s ready reply is: Actually, many of these systems have been fully understood for 40 years or more, and not one explanation has been published offering a plausible scenario by which they could have evolved. Any science that claims to have explained something, when in fact they have published no explanation at all, should be brought to account. (7) The “intelligence” behind such marvelous “irreducibly complex systems” in nature, of course, is God.

How infinitely more complex the human cell, the eye or the brain—than a mousetrap! How wonderfully and poetically the Psalmist expressed appreciation of his Intelligent Creator who engineered the most beautiful of systems: Thou it was who didst fashion my inward parts; thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb, I will praise thee, for thou dost fill me with awe; wonderful thou art, and wonderful thy works. Thou knowest me through and through: my body is no mystery to thee, how I was secretly kneaded into shape and patterned in the depths of the earth. Thou didst see my limbs unformed in the womb. . .day by day they were fashioned, not one of them was late in growing. How deep I find thy thoughts, O God, how inexhaustible their themes!

(8) Darwinists Prove Man Was Created A recent study by evolutionary biologists Dorst (Yale), Akashi (University of Chicago) and Gilbert (Harvard) disproved the premise of evolution. Their study left evolutionists reeling. In their quest for the ancestry of humans, these scientists probed for genetic differences in the Y chromosome of 38 men of different ethnic groups living in different parts of the world. To their amazement, Dorit and his team found no nucleotide differences at all in the nonrecombinant part of the Y chromosomes. This lack of deviation verified that no evolution has occurred in the male ancestry of humans. Stunned by these unexpected results, Dorit and his associates did a statistical analysis to determine whether the 38 men sampled somehow inaccurately represented the male population of the earth. They were forced to conclude that man’s forefather was a single individual—not a group of hominids—who lived no more than 270,000 years ago.

(9) The Bible account of creation is vindicated by scientists. God created Adam, father of the human race. Also, the “no more than 270,000 years” is an interesting retraction from wilder speculations of millions of years. Still, the molecular clock is a priori geared to an evolutionary time frame of history—without consideration of the Biblical time frame. This study was devastating to Darwinists. Shortly thereafter, an American molecular biologist, Michael Hammer, examined 2,600 nucleotide base pair segments of the Y chromosomes in 16 ethnically distinct groups. His results indicated that all descended from one man living as recently as 51,000 years ago. A British team of geneticists studied 100,000 nucleotide based pairs in five ethnically distinct groups. The results were even more compatible with the Bible. Humans are descendants from one man who lived, according to their calculations, 37,000-49,000 years ago.(10) A few more careful studies and scientists’ molecular time clock will agree with the Biblical time frame of history.

Another study was conducted in 1987 on the mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed in the female line from mother to daughter. The conclusion of this study was that all contemporary humans are descendants of one woman (whom ironically they call “Eve”), living less than 200,000 years ago. This study observed a very slight variation on the sampling of women, in contrast to no variation on the men. The study on women may indicate the possibility of slight micro-evolution. Therefore, the male study harmonizes with the Genesis account of creation. Males have a singular origin—Father Adam—whereas this is not true of women. Eve was created from Adam, which accounts for the slight variation in the mitochondrial DNA of women. Darwinian biochemists face another big problem when the Y chromosome of humans is compared with the Y chromosome of chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Large genetic variations occur between these specie. Yet within each specie very little, if any, variation is found. According to Darwinists, all modern primates evolved from a common ancestor 7 to 20 millions of years ago. If this model is correct, less genetic variation between modern primates should be identifiable and greater variation within these specie. But the opposite was true. Darwinists employ every rationale to counter these findings, but the facts stand for themselves. Recent research on Neanderthal has challenged the Darwinists’ arbitrary evolutionary sequence of hominids.

In 1996 anthropologists Jeffrey Schwartz and Ian Fattersall examined more than a dozen Neanderthal skulls. They found nasal bones and sinus cavities many times larger than modern man’s—and no tear ducts. Their conclusions could cause tears for evolutionists! Why? They asserted that anatomical differences eliminates Neanderthal from the line of human ancestry! The final blow to Neanderthal was struck by Darwinists in 1997. Darwinist molecular researchers recovered DNA from a Neanderthal fossil and decoded it to compare how closely it resembled human DNA. Their conclusions—the human face is neither descended from nor related to Neanderthal specie. This blow to Darwinism startled the world. The news was heralded by Newsweek (July 21, 1997, V. 130, p. 65) with a picture of Neanderthal on its front cover. The Darwinists’ “molecular clock” is beginning to look more like the “Genesis clock.” Molecular research confirms what would reasonably be expected of a creation model.(11) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. . .And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.(12)



Who Fine-Tuned the Universe for Life on Earth?

More:
http://www.christiantrumpetsounding.com/creation.htm
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 09-03-2005, 09:00 AM
piglet piglet is offline
ChemE turned Mover
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 212
Two points the first most important

1) Scientists are suppose to look at the evidence then reach a conclusion. Creationists, as well as other scientists, have their conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it. If one does it the backwards way they tend to dismiss evidence that does not support the conclusion.

2) Darwinism was disproven quite awhile ago. Evolution has not, it is a theory that is constantly being tested and refined. Many equate Darwinism to Evolution but Darwinism was just the start of evolution theories.
__________________
UNIVERSALIST, n. One who forgoes the advantage of a Hell for persons of another faith.
- Ambrose Bierce
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-03-2005, 09:03 AM
piglet piglet is offline
ChemE turned Mover
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 212
Also one thing that annoys me greatly by this debate is that creationism does not exclude evolution and evolution does not exclude creationism. Why can we have both? The creator could surely handle the mechanics of evolution, no?
__________________
UNIVERSALIST, n. One who forgoes the advantage of a Hell for persons of another faith.
- Ambrose Bierce
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-03-2005, 09:39 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by piglet
Also one thing that annoys me greatly by this debate is that creationism does not exclude evolution and evolution does not exclude creationism. Why can we have both? The creator could surely handle the mechanics of evolution, no?

Agrred! In fact, Evolution was introduced in Genesis (the correct listing of life forms - trees, fish, fowl, animals, man). There is the Genesis' PARTICULARISED EVOLUTION (a seed after its own kind), and the Darwinian GENERIC EVOLUTION (cross-movement of seed outside its own kind). Only one has been vindicated in our midst.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-03-2005, 10:17 AM
Mindsweeper's Avatar
Mindsweeper Mindsweeper is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Agrred! In fact, Evolution was introduced in Genesis (the correct listing of life forms - trees, fish, fowl, animals, man). There is the Genesis' PARTICULARISED EVOLUTION (a seed after its own kind), and the Darwinian GENERIC EVOLUTION (cross-movement of seed outside its own kind). Only one has been vindicated in our midst.
In my experience, it is this lack of distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution that leads to so much misunderstanding in the evolution/creation debate. I am glad that your original post highlighted this distinction. I also find it difficult to equate theistic evolution (macro-evolution, that is) with the character of God as revealed in the Bible. Survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw, death as a means of arriving at humankind, all seem to contradict the character of God. Micro-evolution (variation/adaptation within species) on the other hand, is a marvel, and absolutely essential to survival, and in keeping with a holy, righteous, loving and good God.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-03-2005, 11:56 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindsweeper
Micro-evolution (variation/adaptation within species) on the other hand, is a marvel, and absolutely essential to survival, and in keeping with a holy, righteous, loving and good God.

Good and bad are created attributes and forces, their quotients do not equate or equal God. IMHO, these are markers for humanity, applicable only in one specific circumstance and scenario; other markers may apply elsewhere in different realms - eg: spiritual being (angels) are not subject to good and bad, owing to the lack of choice, a facility unique to humans.

I have no problem equating nature and its working process with the Creator; how else can it be - a factory producing only nice factors, and where does a choice factor apply therein? What we call nature, including its macro-micro designs, appear the only credible way a Creator can be acknowledged: these workings are different from all other man-made tools, their are environment friendly, run noiselessly, use a perfect quantity of energy, and cannot be emulated by anyone. We become confused because nature operates so naturally, that we cannot credit such to an unseen Creator: that is no reason to negate: a sound premise rests on a sound premise - not necessarilly on proof.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-03-2005, 01:21 PM
Symptom777's Avatar
Symptom777 Symptom777 is offline
Symptom of the Universe
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,001
Blog Entries: 12
omigod. Behe is a nutter. Anything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. You couldn't trust this man to sit on a toilet the right way round.

Creationists deliberatley cloud the difference between evolution and life-formation because it serves them best. And you have all fallen for this. If there was a god evolution would be totally unneccesary.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-03-2005, 02:59 PM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Does it mean if there were parents, teaching a child would be totally unnecessary? Behe's publications have been sellouts and reviewed in many science journals - he should be appraised by what he writes - without the paranoia of know-it-all modern day paganists: mostly, this paranoia is by a generic penchant of flaunting of all religions. behe's logic is not theologically presented: why the deflection?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-03-2005, 03:03 PM
Symptom777's Avatar
Symptom777 Symptom777 is offline
Symptom of the Universe
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,001
Blog Entries: 12
It's not a deflection, Behe is a charlatan.
We already discussed this somewhere in anycase.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-03-2005, 06:06 PM
rpm_artist's Avatar
rpm_artist rpm_artist is offline
Yeah... well... maybe
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by piglet
1) Scientists are suppose to look at the evidence then reach a conclusion. Creationists, as well as other scientists, have their conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it. If one does it the backwards way they tend to dismiss evidence that does not support the conclusion.
We ought not to point fingers too much on this point. I think in reality very few people begin completely objectively without any sort of agenda (whether known or unbeknownst to them). I might go as far as to say we are ALL bias... the trick is to, in spite of that, let the data speak for itself. Regardless, creationists should be judged for this as if they are the only ones who do it. Scientists (most of them) have theories and seek to prove them.
__________________
"We have not succeeded in answering all our problems. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level, and about more important things."
-Bernt Oksendal

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-03-2005, 06:09 PM
rpm_artist's Avatar
rpm_artist rpm_artist is offline
Yeah... well... maybe
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Symptom777
If there was a god evolution would be totally unneccesary.
Technically neither would creation itself, depending on the god. But the unnecessary nature of any particular thing does not make a difference for a god who can choose to do things or create things based on his own knowledge, wisdom, and free will.
__________________
"We have not succeeded in answering all our problems. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level, and about more important things."
-Bernt Oksendal

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-03-2005, 10:08 PM
Symptom777's Avatar
Symptom777 Symptom777 is offline
Symptom of the Universe
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,001
Blog Entries: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpm_artist
Technically neither would creation itself, depending on the god. But the unnecessary nature of any particular thing does not make a difference for a god who can choose to do things or create things based on his own knowledge, wisdom, and free will.
This is the least sensible thing you have said to date. ok most of what you say is quite sensible, so this wasn't as damning as I would like.

All religions are based on a world where ther is no evolution. Her we all are, sicknesses are due to evil-spirits, etc, etc. That, however wrong, makes sense. Now we know the truth, this doesn't make any sense at all.

Evolution is a self correcting mechanism for life. Why do you need self-correction mechanisms?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-03-2005, 11:05 PM
rpm_artist's Avatar
rpm_artist rpm_artist is offline
Yeah... well... maybe
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Symptom777
ok most of what you say is quite sensible, so this wasn't as damning as I would like.
Ahhh... thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Symptom777
All religions are based on a world where ther is no evolution. Her we all are, sicknesses are due to evil-spirits, etc, etc. That, however wrong, makes sense. Now we know the truth, this doesn't make any sense at all.
Perhaps I misunderstood your original statement. Regardless, when you say "religions are based on a world where ther is no evolution" do you mean they are based on purposeful creation instead of random creation from no particular source? Or do you mean no religion believes in the development of the species over time?
__________________
"We have not succeeded in answering all our problems. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level, and about more important things."
-Bernt Oksendal

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-04-2005, 06:51 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Symptom777
This is the least sensible thing you have said to date.

All religions are based on a world where ther is no evolution.

This is the least sensible thing you have said to date. Evolution was introduced in Genesis 1/1 : chaos, light, order, veg, fish, fowl, animanal, humans, etc. Darwin, unintentionally, got it wrong: Particularised evolution (seed after its own kind) is vindicated today - Generic Evolution (cross-species seed after other seed's kind) - ain't.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-04-2005, 06:53 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by rpm_artist
creationists should be judged for this as if they are the only ones who do it. Scientists (most of them) have theories and seek to prove them.

Agreed, and your on!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Einstein's Theory of Relativity! DoctorDick Space and Time 43 02-01-2009 05:04 AM
Hundreds of scientists reject global warming IamJoseph Politics and World Events 11 12-23-2007 02:54 AM
U.S. scientists beg for climate action ArghMonkey Politics and World Events 0 12-06-2007 11:11 PM
Creationists set to release new movie with Ben Stein Zinkovich Politics and World Events 62 08-27-2007 02:21 PM
The Denial Machine ArghMonkey Politics and World Events 19 06-18-2007 05:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:57 PM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network