An Evolutionist Debate

At least one Evolutionist can admit that transitional fossils are rare even thought lately, the Evolutionist make it them seem so common with their Ida and Ardi fossils.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. (Gould)

Though later he changed his mind and said that they are one of the best evidence for the theory of Evolution.

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it. (Lewin)

The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. (Wesson)
Source

Read more...

Global Warming and the Theory of Evolution

I have been accused on my blog of not supporting science because I am against the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is a fraud and shouldn't be called science. There is another theory that also has a political spin and that is the theory of Global Warming. I am not saying that the earth hasn't gotten a few degrees hotter, but I am saying that it is a natural phenomenon. In the 1970s, some people were claiming global cooling and now today they are claiming global warming to the point where they are passing laws that are going to crash our economy.

"I have compared global warming alarmism as a kind of religion, complete with its own versions of sin, repentance, atonement, ritual (kids go through recycling drills) and indulgence (purchase carbon offsets to compensate for your private jet travel). Now it turns out that there’s another element: a desire to kill heretics. Here’s a collection of calls for executions of “global warming deniers.” I don’t see any specifics on what method should be used. Burning at the stake, an old favorite, might produce too much in the way of carbon emissions. Lethal injection might require use of petrochemicals produced from carbon-emitting fossile fuels. Perhaps hanging by the neck until dead with a noose made of natural fibers produced on a certified organic farm which was not reclaimed from rain forest."


When is comes to these crazy theories in science, I rather take the side of the scientists that are not in the majority. The scientists that are usually the zealots are the ones that over look the facts and ignores the evidence. That is because they need to believe in their theory even if it isn't true. It has become a religion to them. Evolution is a religion, and so is Global Warming.

At this site, someone claims that almost no scientists are coming out against Global Warming.

"Well for one thing there aren't very many. There are virtually no climate scientists who dispute that humans are causing global warming. There are a few who dispute that future warming will be particularly dangerous."

This statement is incorrect, because according to what was released on May 19th, over 31,000 scientists signed a petition against Global Warming.

Just like with the theory of evolution where people get fired for not believing it, that would apply to the scientists that don't support Global Warming. Some governments are too involved with passing laws in support of it. Global Warming is a way that the environmental groups can get what they want. People in this country always believes in science as absolute without every questioning it.

"Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses."

Don't believe everything you read just because someone calls it science!!

Read more...

Arguments for Evolution

What I am referring to as evolution is the belief in no God and that life started at the Big Bang and evolved into what we are today. I realize that evolutionist like to separate the views of the evolution of man and the Big Bang, but most evolutionist also believe in the Big Bang and the whole entire view point is what I will be addressing here.

Quote from evolutionist:
"And you cite..... what now? I have read several essays by scientists about evolution. Adaptation and natural selection have been observed, and from there it's simply a matter of time to reach speciation. Which, for that matter, has also been observed. While the fossil record is incomplete, some transitional forms have been located, and assuming that the holes are due to the rarity of fossilization is just as valid as assuming that the missing transitional forms don't exist."

This is from the talkorigins.org website. Creationist do believe in adaptation.

Creationist believe in a creator because life does not come into existence by chance (this has never been observed in science). Creationist believe in a creator which has been believed as long as man has been on the earth. Evolution has not been a widely accepted view point until Darwin.
Lets discuss some of the primary arguments for evolution (See my next posts for rebuttals):

1) Evolutionist believe in the Big Bang (Unless you are someone like Hugh Ross who doesn't truly believe in the Bible so they adapt the Bible with evolution): This theory believes that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, that the earth is billions of years old and that over billions of years we evolved by random chance and random mutations into what we are today.

2) Evolutionist believe in macro-evolution which means that we evolved from a completely different Kind.

3) Evolutionist believe that the earth is billions of years old. (So do other people who adapt the Bible to evolutionist theories)

4) Evolutionist do not believe in a world wide flood caused by God, but other forms of natural disasters such as the ice age.

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Read more...

The Science of Evolution

If Evolution is supported by so many facts, then why does the latest gallop poll show that less than 40 percent of the American people believe in Evolution? In America, students learn Evolution in elementary school, junior high, high school, and even college. All of the public institutions and many private institutions still teach Evolution? But somehow they still haven't convinced the majority of the masses that it is true. Even though the Internet is dominated by Evolutionist propaganda, people are still not buying into this theory. People have said that Evolution is a fact for the longest time and now with Ardi, they are rethinking their theory. I thought it was already declared a fact?

There are all types of evolution that people hear of such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macroevolution, microevolution and chemical evolution. Most supporters of evolution probably don't even know the difference because they usually get confused by calling their evidence macroevolution when in reality, it is only microevolution.

according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary means "comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level" (2009)

Microevolution is the only type of evolution that happens today and even Creationist believe in Microevolution. The other type of evolution has never been observed happening. It is amazing to me that there still are so many supporters of evolution.

One major problem with the theory of evolution is that of irreducibly complex systems. According to Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, an "irreducibly complex system" cannot be made by minute, consecutive changes of a previous system, since any change to remove a part of an "irreducibly complex system" will result in non-functionality (1996). This means that if one part is missing, the whole system will fail. The problem that challenges the theory of evolution is that an organism cannot evolve if it cannot live with one part missing. Michael Behe (1996) gives an example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex mechanism. The mousetrap has five basic parts to it: hammer, spring, catch, holding bar, and platform. If any one of these parts were missing, the whole mousetrap would fail to function.

The problem with the theory of Evolution is that we know more about science today than when Darwin was alive. The cell is way more complex than Darwin was aware of, and Darwin did not know about irreducibly complex systems like scientists do today.

Darwin might not even believe in his own theory if he was alive today.

Macroevolution is, according to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, "evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)" (2009). "Species formation" is referring to changes outside a species, e.g., a chicken evolving into a hamster. There is only one problem with macroevolution, and that is that there is no proof for it.

One of these problems is in the genetic code. The genetic code can change within the species from generation to generation, but it cannot have new information added to it. For instance, a person could take a wolf and pick out one trait like a black colored coat, and then breed it for several generations until all they would get are black wolf puppies.

Read More

Read more...

The Big Bang Fact or Fiction

George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).

(H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg.138).
H.S. Lipson who was quoted as saying that the Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming. He went on to say that evolutionists have zealously sought evidence to validate their theory and nothing has yet to stand up under the close scrutiny of an in depth scientific evaluation.

People have been persuaded to think that evolution is a fact, and there isn't any evidence against evolution. One atheist asked me (in another post) why so many scientist believe in evolution. My answer is this, "Because the evolutionist ran a good campaign". The evolutionist have been successful in influencing the media and our educational institutions by convincing people that science has proven everything. People constantly use the term, "it is scientific", and therefore it must be true. The fact is that evolution has so many holes in it that the atheist are embarrassed. However, this is the only theory they have so they keep believing it.

Some of the problems with the big bang:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

1) The element abundance predictions used in the Big Bang require too many adjustable paramters to make them work.

2) The universe has too much large scale structure to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

3) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

You can read more at the above website.

Read more...

Ardi Evolution - Some More False Science

A few months ago I created a post about Ida, the new fossil that was suppose to be the missing link for evolution. I haven't heard much about that fossil lately, but now intelligent people are getting bombarded with another fossil, Ardi (rdipithecus ramidus). You would think they just found this fossil, but in reality, it was discovered in the 1990s. Why are the evolutionist making a big deal about it now? Because this is how long it took them to get the bones together because they were in such bad shape. This fossil is a partial skeleton put together based on a smattering of bones linked with at least 36 ramidus individuals, and these bones are suppose to be 4.4 million years old.

If I smash my daughters doll house and buried it and someone else uncovered it after 20 years, is that person going to be able to put it back together and say, “This is a little girls doll house”. Why do we think that science can do that with fossils. Do these scientist have any idea how old 4.4 million years is, and do they honestly think that they can find a shattered skeleton of some kind, which takes them almost 20 years to put back together, and then be able to really conclude anything about it?

Where is the science here? The only real critics about this discovery are Creationist. Where is the evolutionary scientific peer reviews? Evolutionist have told me that all of the theories of evolution are valid because they have all been scrutinized by other scientists. I don't believe that for a second. I have read a lot of articles, and I have yet to see one written by an evolutionist that criticize any discovery that supports the theory of evolution. That is because they don't want to damage their already damaged theory. It is almost like the Democrats in Congress debating on a bill without inviting the Republicans. The Evolutionist peer review a theory that they already agree with. They aren't going to get any valid criticism from Evolutionist. You don't have to be a scientist to see the serious issues in what the news media and scientific community is proclaiming about this fossil. The image in the news is a full man with hair on it, but in reality, Ardi is scattered remains of some fossil which could be anything from an extinct or dead animal.

I was reading from another magazine about a scientist who had an experiment on one of the space shuttles that blew up. Her experiment contained some organisms to see how they react in space. Some of these organisms survived the space shuttle crash, and this discovery led to a theory that states, “Life didn't originate on earth, but original life came to earth on an Asteroid.” How can scientists even call this a theory? These types of theories make me lose faith in today's science. Modern science that enhances technology and cures illnesses is great science. But the science that is designed to understand where man came from is seriously flawed unless you start with the premise stated in the book of Genesis.

The evolutionist think that the Creationist are wackos, but with science like this, no wonder why the majority of intelligent people still believe in God.

If you believe in evolution, you need to seriously and objectively look at the other side because the Creationist view point makes 100 times more sense. The only reason why people still hold to the theory of evolution is because that is the only theory they have to justify their atheism.

Read More about Ardi
Read about the Asteroid Theory

Read more...