DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 53--------------------------------------------------
Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 13, 2013, 12:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]If Darwin was alive today, he would be arguing AGAINST the
validity of the Theory of Evolution! :o[/move]
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013011359.png[/img]
The End of Irreducible Complexity?
by Dr. Georgia Purdom, AiG–U.S.on
October 6, 2009
The titles of two recent science news articles caught my
attention, “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by
Science” and “Intelligent Design ‘Evidence’ Unproven by Real
Science.”1 The evidence in question is a molecular machine.
Members of the Intelligent Design Movement and creation
scientists have often stated that molecular machines are
irreducibly complex and could not be formed by evolution.
However, evolutionists now claim the mechanism of
“pre-adaptation” is a way that these molecular machines could
have evolved.
What Is a Molecular Machine and Why Is It Irreducibly Complex?
Molecular machines are complex structures located inside of
cells or on the surface of cells. One popular example is the
bacterial flagella. This whip-like structure is composed of many
proteins, and its rotation propels bacteria through their
environment. The molecular machine of interest in a recent PNAS
article is a protein transport machine located in the
mitochondria.2 This machine transports proteins across the
membrane of mitochondria so they can perform the very important
function of making energy.
Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. An
irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential
parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function
properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is
non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise
fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex
machines. Evolution is not goal-oriented; it cannot work towards
a specific outcome. If a part of the machine would happen to
form by random chance mutation (which itself is not plausible,
see Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?), but the
other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time,
then the organism containing that individual part (by itself
non-functional) would not have a particular survival advantage
and would not be selected for. Since the part offers no
advantage to the organism, it would likely be lost from the
population, and evolution would be back to square one in forming
the parts for the machine. There is essentially no way to
collect the parts over time because the individual parts do not
have a function (without the other parts) and do not give the
organism a survival advantage. Remember, all the necessary parts
must be present for the machine to be functional and convey a
survival advantage that could be selected for.
So How Can Evolution Account for Irreducibly Complex Molecular
Machines?
The inability to find mechanisms that add information to the
genome necessary to form parts for the molecular machines and
the inability of Darwinian evolution to collect parts for the
machines (no direction or goal) have led evolutionists to
develop the idea of “pre-adaptation.” Simply stated,
“pre-adaptation” is the formation of new parts for a new
molecular machine (from currently existing parts that perform
another function) before the machine is needed by the organism.
Some quotes will help clarify.
Study authors Abigail Clements et al. state, “We proposed that
simple “core” machines were established in the first eukaryotes
by drawing on pre-existing bacterial proteins that had
previously provided distinct functions.”3
Sebastian Poggio, co-author of the study, stated, “[The pieces]
were involved in some other, different function. They were
recruited and acquired a new function.”4
Wired Science writer, Brandon Keim, puts it this way: “[T]he
necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine . . . were
lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before
they came together into a more complex entity.” He also states,
“The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to
snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral
evolution,” in which the buildup of parts provides no immediate
advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the
descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather,
mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest . . .
.”5
These quotes conjure up images of Lego building blocks from my
childhood days. The same blocks could be put together in many
different ways to form different structures. The study authors
suggest proteins that perform one function can be altered (via
mutation6) and used for a different function. This eliminates
the need to add new genetic information and requires only a
modification of current information. Clements et al. state,
“This model agrees with Jacob’s proposition of evolution as a
“tinkerer,” building new machines from salvaged parts.”7
The problem with this concept is why would evolution “keep”
parts that are intermediate between their old function and a new
function? The parts or proteins are more or less stuck between a
rock and a hard place. They likely don’t perform their old
function because they have been altered by mutation, and they
don’t perform their new function in a molecular machine because
not all the parts are present yet.8 Studies have shown that
bacteria tend to lose genetic information that is not needed in
their current environment.
For example, the well known microbial ecologist Richard Lenski
has shown that bacteria cultured in a lab setting for several
years will lose information for making flagella from their
genome.9 Bacteria are being supplied with nutrients and do not
need flagella to move to find a food source. Bacteria are model
organisms when it comes to economy and efficiency, and those
bacteria that lose the information to make flagella are at an
advantage over bacteria that are taking energy and nutrients to
build structures that are not useful in the current environment.
Thus, even if new parts for a new molecular machine could be
made via mutation from parts or proteins used for another
function, the process of natural selection would eliminate them.
The parts or proteins no longer serve their old function, and
they cannot serve their new function until all the parts for the
machine are present.
In particular, notice the use of verbs in the quotes above, such
as drawing on, recruited, came together, and snap together.
These are all action verbs that invoke the image of someone or
something putting the parts together. Going back to the Lego
analogy, an intelligent designer (me!) is required to put the
Lego blocks together to form different structures. Just leaving
the blocks lying on the floor or shaking them up in their
storage container doesn’t result in anything but a big mess of
blocks! Although the powers to “tinker” and “snap together” are
conferred on mutation and natural selection, they are incapable
of designing and building molecular machines.
Conclusion
Pre-adaptation is another “just so” evolutionary story that
attempts to avoid the problems of necessary information gain and
the goal-less nature of evolution. It fails to answer how parts
that are intermediate between their old and new functions would
be selected for and accumulated to build a molecular machine.
Michael Gray, cell biologist at Dalhousie University, states,
“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would
biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre. But when you
think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these
machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes
sense.”10 It only makes sense if you start with the
presupposition that evolution is true and confer powers to
mutation and natural selection that the evidence shows they do
not have.
Clements et al. write, “There is no question that molecular
machines are remarkable devices, with independent modules
capable of protein substrate recognition, unfolding, threading,
and translocation through membranes.”11
The evidence is clear, as Romans 1:20 states, that the Creator
God can be known through His creation. Many people will stand in
awe of the complexities of molecular machines and still deny
they are the result of God’s handiwork. But that doesn’t change
the truth of His Word that He is the Creator of all things.
HTML http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/end-of-irreducible-complexity
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-animal-067.gif
;D
#Post#: 56--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 13, 2013, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013160639.png[/img]
[move]No transitional Fossils ???
[/move]
In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin himself admitted that at
the time of writing, the fossils discovered made it look like a
series of acts of creation between each main order of life.
Although he urged people to look for links between them, he also
admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his theory
would be incorrect. It therefore makes no sense what-so-ever,
that man should unearth thousands of fossils every year,
representing highly ‘developed’ and sophisticated life forms,
and yet mysteriously there are no intermediate, half-developed
life forms discovered between layers. No matter how much digging
around we do, there really is no back door away from this issue.
In fact so much of evolution’s credibility depends on this
starting issue, nothing in this belief system evens begins to
carry any weight whilst this anomaly exists. A bit like needing
to throw a six to start a game of ludo.
A recent article by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D., F.M. explains;
Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science discusses the
fossil record in several places. Creationists and evolutionists,
with their different assumptions, predict different things about
the fossil record. If living things had really evolved from
other kinds of creatures, then there would have been many
intermediate or transitional forms, with halfway structures.
However, if different kinds had been created separately, the
fossil record should show creatures appearing abruptly and fully
formed.
The transitional fossils problem
Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show
what his theory predicted:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any
such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most
obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the
theory.1
Is it any different today?
The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the
British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In
reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any
pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:
I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct
illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew
of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …
. I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument.2
The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between
major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even
in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in
many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.3
And:
I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in
life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.4
As Sunderland points out:
It of course would be no puzzle at all if he [Gould] had not
decided before he examined the evidence that common-ancestry
evolution was a fact, ‘like apples falling from a tree,’ and
that we can only permit ourselves to discuss possible mechanisms
to explain that assumed fact.5
The gaps are huge
Teaching about Evolution avoids discussing the vast gulf between
non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and
multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The
gaps between these groups should be enough to show that
molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation.
There are many other examples of different organisms appearing
abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the
first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers.
Turtles are a well designed and specialized group of reptiles,
with a distinctive shell protecting the body’s vital organs.
However, evolutionists admit ‘Intermediates between turtles and
cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists
believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ They
can’t plead an incomplete fossil record because ‘turtles leave
more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.’6
The ‘oldest known sea turtle’ was a fully formed turtle, not at
all transitional. It had a fully developed system for
excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly
dehydrate. This is shown by skull cavities which would have held
large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.7
All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the
fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson wrote in 1944:
The earliest and most primitive members of every order already
have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an
approximately continuous series from one order to another known.
In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that
the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.8
There is little to overturn that today.9
[i]Excuses
Like most evolutionary propaganda, Teaching about Evolution
makes assertions that there are many transitional forms, and
gives a few ‘examples.’ An article in Refuting Evolution
contains the gleeful article by the evolutionist (and atheist)
E.O. Wilson, ‘Discovery of a Missing Link.’ He claimed to have
studied ‘nearly exact intermediates between solitary wasps and
the highly social modern ants.’ But another atheistic
evolutionist, W.B. Provine, says that Wilson’s ‘assertions are
explicitly denied by the text … . Wilson’s comments are
misleading at best.’10
Teaching about Evolution emphasizes Archaeopteryx and an alleged
land mammal-to-whale transition series, so they are covered in
chapters 4 and 5 of Refuting Evolution. Teaching about Evolution
also makes the following excuse on page 57:
Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave
many transitional fossils.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils because
of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could
easily be fossilized.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif
Darwin also excused the lack of transitional fossils by ‘the
extreme imperfection of the fossil record.’ But as we have seen,
even organisms that leave excellent fossils, like turtles, are
lacking in intermediates. Michael Denton points out that 97.7
percent of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as
fossils and 79.1 percent of living families of land
vertebrates—87.8 percent if birds are excluded, as they are less
likely to become fossilized.11
It’s true that fossilization requires specific conditions.
Normally, when a fish dies, it floats to the top and rots and is
eaten by scavengers. Even if some parts reach the bottom, the
scavengers take care of them. Scuba divers don’t find the sea
floor covered with dead animals being slowly fossilized. The
same applies to land animals. Millions of buffaloes (bison) were
killed in North America last century, but there are very few
fossils.
In nature, a well-preserved fossil generally requires rapid
burial (so scavengers don’t obliterate the carcass), and
cementing agents to harden the fossil quickly. Teaching about
Evolution has some good photos of a fossil fish with
well-preserved features (p. 3) and a jellyfish (p. 36). Such
fossils certainly could not have formed gradually—how long do
dead jellyfish normally retain their features? If you wanted to
form such fossils, the best way might be to dump a load of
concrete on top of the creature! Only catastrophic conditions
can explain most fossils—for example, a global flood and its
aftermath of widespread regional catastrophism. (see topic:
Evidence for a Global Flood )
Teaching about Evolution goes on to assert after the previous
quote:
However, in many cases, such as between primitive fish and
amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and
reptiles and birds, there are excellent transitional
fossils.[/I]
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
But Teaching about Evolution provides no evidence for this! We
can briefly examine some of the usual evolutionary claims below
(for reptile-to-bird, see the next chapter on birds):
•
Fish to amphibian: Some evolutionists believe that amphibians
evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth.
It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for
walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. This
speculation seemed impossible to disprove, since according to
evolutionary/long-age interpretations of the fossil record, the
last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago. But a living
coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938. And it
was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft
maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally
fish-like, not transitional. It also has some unique features—it
gives birth to live young after about a year’s gestation, it has
a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that
detects electrical signals.12 The earliest amphibian,
Ichthyostega (mentioned on p. 39 of Teaching about Evolution),
is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder
and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the
Rhipidistians.
•
Amphibian to reptile: Seymouria is a commonly touted
intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature
is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years
ago, about 30 million years younger than the ‘earliest’ true
reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris.[i] That is, reptiles are
allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors!
Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not
completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from
amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number
of new structures and a change in biochemistry—see the section
below on soft part changes.
•
Reptile to mammal: The ‘mammal-like reptiles’ are commonly
asserted to be transitional. But according to a specialist on
these creatures:
Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears
suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species
that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later,
equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended
species.13
Evolutionists believe that the earbones of mammals evolved from
some jawbones of reptiles. But Patterson recognized that there
was no clear-cut connection between the jawbones of ‘mammal-like
reptiles’ and the earbones of mammals. In fact, evolutionists
have argued about which bones relate to which.14
The function of possible intermediates
The inability to imagine functional intermediates is a real
problem. If a bat or bird evolved from a land animal, the
transitional forms would have forelimbs that were neither good
legs nor good wings. So how would such things be selected? The
fragile long limbs of hypothetical halfway stages of bats and
pterosaurs would seem more like a hindrance than a help.
Soft part changes
Of course, the soft parts of many creatures would also have
needed to change drastically, and there is little chance of
preserving them in the fossil record. For example, the
development of the amniotic egg would have required many
different innovations, including:
•
The shell.
•
The two new membranes—the amnion and allantois.
•
Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid rather than urea (urea
would poison the embryo).
•
Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water.
•
Yolk for food.
•
A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the
egg before the shell hardens.15
Another example is the mammals—they have many soft-part
differences from reptiles, for example:
•
Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood
cells without nuclei, a heart with four chambers instead of
three and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally
different system of blood supply to the eye.
•
Mammals produce milk, to feed their young.
•
Mammalian skin has two extra layers, hair and sweat glands.
•
Mammals have a diaphragm, a fibrous, muscular partition between
the thorax and abdomen, which is vital for breathing. Reptiles
breathe in a different way.
•
Mammals keep their body temperature constant (warm-bloodedness),
requiring a complex temperature control mechanism.
•
The mammalian ear has the complex organ of Corti, absent from
all reptile ears.16
•
Mammalian kidneys have a ‘very high ultrafiltration rate of the
blood.’ This means the heart must be able to produce the
required high blood pressure. Mammalian kidneys excrete urea
instead of uric acid, which requires different chemistry. They
are also finely regulated to maintain constant levels of
substances in the blood, which requires a complex endocrine
system.19
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
First published in Refuting Evolution
Chapter 3
1.C.R. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872 (London:
John Murray, 1902), p. 413.
2.C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979,
as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books,
4th ed. 1988), p. 89. Patterson later tried to backtrack
somewhat from this clear statement, apparently alarmed that
creationists would utilize this truth.
3.S.J. Gould, in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John
Maynard Smith, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p.
140. Teaching about Evolution pages 56–57 publishes a complaint
by Gould about creationists quoting him about the rarity of
transitional forms. He accuses creationists of representing him
as denying evolution itself. This complaint is unjustified.
Creationists make it very clear that he is a staunch
evolutionist the whole point is that he is a ‘hostile witness.’
4.S.J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History
93(2):14–23, Feb. 1984.
5.L. Sunderland, ref. 2, p. 47–48.
6.Reptiles, Encyclopedia Britannica 26:704–705, 15th ed., 1992.
7.Ren Hirayama, Oldest Known Sea Turtle, Nature
392(6678):705–708, 16 April 1998; comment by Henry Gee, p. 651,
same issue.
8.
9.G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (NY: Columbia
University Press, 1944), p. 105–106.
10.A useful book on the fossil record is D.T. Gish, Evolution:
The Fossils STILL Say NO! (El Cahon, CA: Institute for Creation
Research, 1995).
11.Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review
by Dr Will B. Provine. Available from , 18 February 1999.
12.M. Denton, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD:
Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 190.
13.M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 157, 178–180; see also W. Roush,
‘Living Fossil’ Is Dethroned, Science 277(5331):1436, 5
September 1997, and No Stinking Fish in My Tail, Discover, March
1985, p. 40.
14.T.S. Kemp, The Reptiles that Became Mammals, New Scientist
92:583, 4 March 1982.
15.C. Patterson, Morphological Characters and Homology; in K.A.
Joysey and A.E. Friday (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic
Reconstruction, Proceedings of an International Symposium held
in Cambridge, The Systematics Association Special Volume 21
(Academic Press, 1982), 21–74.
16.M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 218–219.
17.D. Dewar, The Transformist Illusion, 2nd edition, (Ghent, NY:
Sophia Perennis et Universalis, 1995), p. 223–232.
18.T.S. Kemp, Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals
(New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 309–310.
HTML http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=22
#Post#: 68--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 15, 2013, 8:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013204749.png[/img]
But Dawkins cannot accept that the most obvious reason for said
"planting" is creation.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013210733.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013210944.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013211306.png[/img]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/looksmiley.gif
[img width=400
height=480]
HTML http://robservations.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/happy-cat1.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 69--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 15, 2013, 9:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013205158.png[/img]
Fossil Record problems for the Theory of Evolution
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013205633.png[/img]
Fatal flaw in Theory of Evolution envisioned by Darwin :o
Over 140 years later, it is an established scientific fact that
numerous species belonging to the same genera or families DID
start all at once but those clinging to the "evolution" straw
have "modified" the tenets of natural selection to include an
even less likely probability: CO-evolution.
This requires that symbiotic life forms like bees and flower
pollen, termites and the bacteria in their gut that enables them
to digest cellulose, leaf cutter ants and the fungus they raise
to digest the leaves into starches AND the bacterial coat in the
fungus farming specialist ants that keep the fungus from getting
out of control through very specific antibiotics happen
randomly. This is where it gets ridiculous because symbiotic
mechanisms (just to name a few of uncountable symbiotic
relationships among widely divergent species with no possible
evolutionary ancestor) MUST occur within a single life of the
target species or the "evolutionary advantage" is of no use.
Why is this a big deal? Because CO-evolution is mathematically
impossible from the standard evolutionist view that positive
mutations take millions of years to come about. his MUST occur
in a few years or whatever a single life cycle of the target
species is.
But they won't discard the discredited Theory of Evolution
because they will be forced to go the intelligent design route
and believe our biosphere was put here by ET scientists doing a
science experiment or, horror of horrors, the God of all
creation.
Evolutionist in the face of proven Creation ->
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif
[move]The Theory of Evolution needs a name change. I propose the
Theory of the River in Egypt (De Nile).
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-007.gif[/move]
#Post#: 73--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: Surly1 Date: October 16, 2013, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fascinating thread, AG.
Not a scientist, and not sure what to make of it, but the facts
as presented make for a compelling argument.
#Post#: 76--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 16, 2013, 3:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Eddie said,
[quote]The problem we have here, this "fight" between science
and religion ( not just over evolution...evolution is just one
battle in a broader war) comes from a failure on the part of
some religious people to understand that the great religious
books of the past are full of magical explanations for things.
Not because the writers wanted to make shit up, but because they
just lacked clear knowledge. And since many religious folks feel
that whatever version of their Bible or other Holy Book is the
literal, infallible, final, Word of God, they can't reconcile
new data with the magical explanations of the past.
They are constantly having to struggle to fit new data into an
old story line that doesn't seem to be compatible with what
science is finding out...and since science has progressed very
rapidly over recent generations, it's getting harder to do, and
requires an increasing level of imagination, with the
alternative being a rejection of science, because...well, it's
easier and cleaner and requires No Thinking.
[/quote]
Well said! :emthup:
That said, the Procrustean bed many fundies have made for
themselves applies to the evolutionary true believing
fundamentalists that view any questioning of Darwin's flawed
theory as sacrilege worthy of scorn and ridicule. IOW, these
"scientists" are rejecting the scientific method when new
scientific discoveries in
1. cell machinery,
2. multiple symbiotic relationships in widely divergent species
with no "evolutionary: common ancestor,
3. fossil record showing no transitional life forms (unless the
definition of "transitional" becomes rather pliant in its
magical thinking story telling imagination - speculation without
evidence is not science - calling "evidence" an interpretation
of fossils as transitional life forms is an opinion, not
evidence),
4. sudden appearance of related species genera of the same
family in the fossil record
5. dating assumptions in rock strata despite several issues with
dating methods (one dating method showing radically different
age than others yet the one producing the more "acceptable"
(tens to hundreds millions of years older REQUIRED for
ACCEPTABLE natural selection) age being the one given
"scientific" credibility, etc.
What I'm saying is that what is good for the goose is good for
the gander. Darwin himself and famous evolutionist scientists
like Dawkins admit the following:
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013011359.png[/img]
Darwin's worry
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013204749.png[/img]
Dawkins on the Cambrian "sudden planting" of many COMPLETE life
forms
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013205158.png[/img]
Fossil Record Scientific Reality without Storytelling and
Magical Thinking
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013205633.png[/img]
Fatal flaw in Theory of Evolution envisioned by Darwin
And what is the modern response to all the above by the alleged
hard boiled scientists that allegedly are not tied to religious
superstition and fairy tails with flights of imaginative fancy
about this, that and the other came to be?
They come up with even more improbable scenarios that boggle the
mind of any mathematician performing probability and statistics;
I.E. "CO-evolution to produce symbiotic mechanisms IN A SINGLE
life cycle of a species!" (Millions of years don't apply
because, according to evolutionary theory, if an "evolutionary
advantage" mutation expresses itself in a species (In Zoology I
was taught that having two penises was an evolutionary advantage
for the crocodile. I suppose they figured one of them could be
used as a fish lure or he still could procreate if another crock
ate his in a fight - that sure sounds like opinion and story
telling rather that scientific evidence to me. ;) it is
necessary for that beneficial mutation to begin to be used or it
will be "selected out". Do you see the problem here? The other
side of the symbiosis HAS to connect up in an extremely short
period of time or one side gets lost.
This is a scientific Procrustean bed they are trying to stuff
the Theory of Evolution in by calling on the CO-evolution
magical thinking. Why is it magical and unscientific? Because
CO-evolution without intelligent design requires several times
more time than the universe age. Yes. I know, some will say that
then maybe he universe IS 100 billion years or so old. They'll
say ANYTHING to avoid giving the "GOD DID IT" hypothesis and
scientific credibility whatsoever.
Your statements apply correctly to the Goose (the fundies). This
is how they ALSO apply to the Gander (evolution true believers).
In regard the Evolutionists:"they can't reconcile new data with
the magical explanations of the past (see Darwin's worries
above).
They are constantly having to struggle to fit new data into an
old story line that doesn't seem to be compatible with what
science is finding out...and since science has progressed very
rapidly over recent generations, it's getting harder to do, (see
1 through 5 above) and requires an increasing level of
imagination, (see CO-evolutionary symbiosis and dual crocodile
penises) with the alternative being a rejection of science,
because...well...
they will be forced to go the intelligent design route and
believe our biosphere was put here by ET scientists doing a
science experiment or, horror of horrors, the God of all
creation.
Evolutionist in the face of proven
Creation:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif
I'm a sort of fundy but I agree with you that there is a lot of
non-scientific imagination in the Bible that does NOTHING to
reduce the veracity of the message from God to us about how to
behave if we want to reach our full potential. I basically could
care less if God did it through evolution, mud puddles with
Darwinian and Einsteinian brain cells thrown in one day when God
had nothing better to do or if the ETs God made long before he
made us are running a science experiment. :icon_mrgreen:
But if people who claim to have the scientific method enshrined
right up there with the tablets Moses was given are going to
tell me they will ONLY support evidence based on the scientific
method, they should shit can the Theory of Evolution and be
ready to shit can anything else that doesn't "fit" into the
Procrustean Bed called the Theory of Evolution. Otherwise, they
are as guilty of turf protecting, non-thinking, BULLSHIT as the
overly zealous fundies.
I will not EVER accept science fiction as science fact. It's
time to move on to something more credible than "the mud puddle
PLUS a few billion years equals the biosphere".
#Post#: 83--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 17, 2013, 6:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 84--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 17, 2013, 6:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Radiometric dating gives many surprises.
Basalts from Hualalai in Hawaii, observed to have erupted in
1800–01, gave potassium-argon (K-Ar) ages ranging from 160
million years to 3,300 million years. [sup]1[/sup]
A lava dome on Mt St Helens in USA, observed to form since the
1980 eruption, gave K-Ar ages between 350,000 and 2,800,000
years. [sup]2[/sup]
Lava erupted from Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, between 1949 and
1975, gave K-Ar ages up to 3,500,000 years. [sup]3[/sup]
HTML http://creation.com/a-giant-cause
HTML http://creation.com/a-giant-cause
#Post#: 92--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 17, 2013, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"There is no way to determine the age of eggs when examining
fossilized
remains. " :o
Is it Possible to Tell how Old Eggs Are?
The age of an egg is typically unable to be definitively
determined, unlike the ago of the majority of other fossilized
animal remains. The study and classification of eggs is a
science known as oology. If eggs are left with their inner
contents untouched, they will usually eventually rot, which may
make it more difficult to figure out egg age.
Eggs can be preserved by poking tiny holes into the shells and
extracting the insides, and in some cases the eggs will
fossilize. Even if fossilized eggs are found, it is difficult
for scientists to study their insides closely enough to
determine age. CAT scans or soaking the fossils in mild acid may
be used to view the insides, but generally age is only
hypothesized by comparing eggs to other remains found near them.
Agelbert Note: Unfortunately the accompanying remains used to
date the eggs which can't be dated are "dated" by the
hypothesized age of the rock strata (which is another giant bag
of multi million year dating variation differences depending on
the method used. I will list the various dating methods and
their "scientifically accepted" error margins in another post.
:P
More about eggs:
•Collecting wild eggs was first officially made illegal in the
United States in 1918, followed by the United Kingdom in 1954,
and is generally not permitted throughout the world.
•Bird eggs are more likely to be speckled if they were laid on
the ground, as opposed to a nest in a tree.
•Papaya extract is often injected into eggs to dissolve the
inner contents, which can take up to three weeks. ::)
HTML http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-possible-to-tell-how-old-eggs-are.htm
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.wallpaperdev.com/stock/wild-cats-apple-mac-hd-comic-pet-very-happy-cat.jpg[/img]
[move]You just never know when you may need some Papaya
extract... ;D [/move]
#Post#: 93--------------------------------------------------
The Dating Game
By: AGelbert Date: October 17, 2013, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[I]Dating methods[/i] [sup]1[/sup]
Carbon-14 dates are determined from the measured ratio of
radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 (14C/12C). Used on
samples which were once alive, such as wood or bone, the
measured 14C/12C ratio is compared with the ratio in living
things today. The date is calculated by assuming the change of
14C in the sample is due entirely to radioactive decay. It is
also assumed that carbon has been in equilibrium on the earth
for hundreds of thousands of years.
Wrong dates are usually caused by assuming a wrong initial
14C/12C ratio, contamination or leaching. Samples from before
the Flood, or from the early post-Flood period, give ages that
are too old by tens of thousands of years. This is because the
Flood buried lots of 12C-rich plants and animals. This would
result in a lower 14C/12C ratio, which is wrongly interpreted as
great age.
Thermoluminescence (TL) dates are obtained from individual
grains of common minerals such as quartz. When such grains are
heated, they emit light, and this is related to the radiation
‘stored’ in the crystal structure. It is assumed that the
radiation was slowly absorbed from the environment, building up
from zero at a certain time in the past (perhaps when the grain
was last exposed to sunlight). A date is calculated by measuring
the light emitted from the mineral grain when it is heated, and
measuring the radiation in the environment where the grain was
found.
Unfortunately, there are many unknowns and many assumptions
need to be made, including the amount of radiation ‘stored’ in
the mineral at a certain time in the past, that the change in
radiation has only been affected by the radiation in the
environment, that the radiation in the environment has remained
constant, and that the sensitivity of the crystal to radiation
has not changed. All these factors can be affected by water,
heat, sunlight, the accumulation or leaching of minerals in the
environment, and many other causes.
Optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates are based on
exactly the same principle as TL. But instead of heating the
grain, it is exposed to light to make it emit its ‘stored’
radiation. The calculated date is based on the same assumptions,
and affected by the same uncertainties, as for TL.
Electron-spin resonance (ESR) dates are based on the same
principles as TL and OSL. However, the ‘stored’ radiation in the
sample is measured by exposing it to gamma radiation and
measuring the radiation emitted. The measuring technique does
not destroy the ‘stored’ radiation (as does TL and OSL), so the
measurement can be repeated on the same sample. The calculated
date is based on the same assumptions, and affected by the same
uncertainties, as for TL and OSL.
Thorium-uranium (Th/U) dates are based on measuring the isotopes
of uranium and thorium in a sample. It is known that uranium-238
decays radioactively to form thorium-230 (through a number of
steps, including through uranium-234). The dating calculation
assumes that the thorium and uranium in the sample are related
to each other by radioactive decay. Furthermore, before a date
can be calculated, the initial ratios of 230Th/238U and
234U/238U need to be assumed, and it is also assumed that there
has been no gain or loss of uranium or thorium to/from the
environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’. However, the bone
and soil must have been ‘open’ to allow these elements to enter
and accumulate.
Protactinium-uranium (Pa/U) dates are based on similar
principles as Th/U dating, but use uranium-235 and
protactinium-231 instead. The isotope 235U decays radioactively
to form 231Pa. Again, it is assumed that the isotopes in the
sample are related to each other by radioactive decay. Also, the
initial ratio of 231Pa/235U has to be assumed, and it is assumed
that there has been no gain or loss of uranium or protactinium
to/from the environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’.
Again, any bone sample containing uranium must have been ‘open’
to allow it to accumulate in the first place.
Reference
1.Details about dating methods may be obtained from such sources
as: Smart, P.L. and Frances, P.D. (Eds.), Quaternary Dating
Methods—A User’s Guide, Quaternary Research Association,
Technical Guide No. 4, Cambridge, 1991, or Faure, G., Principles
of Isotope Geology, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
USA, 1986.
The Dating Game
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/assets/images/article/journal/9694/lake-mungo-national-park.jpg[/img]
Lake Mungo National Park
In western New South Wales, Australia, part of a semi-arid
desert has been set aside as a World Heritage area.[sup]1[/sup]
This may seem curious for such an inhospitable region. But there
is a good reason. Evolutionists believe that the site represents
an outstanding example of the major stages in man’s evolutionary
history.
It all centres on the discovery of human remains in sand dunes
surrounding ancient Lake Mungo—now a dry, flat plain, vegetated
by scraggly salt-tolerant bushes and grasses.
[img width=640
height=850]
HTML http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6925/images/nature01383-f1.2.jpg[/img]
The first major find, in 1969, was of crushed and burnt skeletal
fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Lake Mungo 1, or
more affectionately Mungo Woman.[sup]2,3[/sup] What made the
find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating (see
Dating methods) on bone apatite (the hard bone material) yielded
an age of 19,000 years and on collagen (soft tissue) gave 24,700
years.[sup]3[/sup] This excited the archaeologists, because that
date made their find the oldest human burial in Australia.
But carbon-14 dating on nearby charcoal produced an ‘age’ up to
26,500 years. This meant that the skeleton, buried slightly
lower than the charcoal, must have been older. Not surprisingly,
the older charcoal age was considered to be the ‘most reliable’
estimate[sup]3[/sup] and launched Mungo Woman to national and
international fame. Jane Balme, of the Centre for Archaeology at
the University of Western Australia, put it succinctly, ‘There’s
a general perception that there is a competition to get the
oldest date and there’s kudos in it.’[sup]4[/sup]
Certainly, there was kudos in this date. At 26,000 years, Mungo
Woman was nearly twice as old as the previous oldest date for
Aboriginal settlement of Australia, and possibly the earliest
human cremation in the world.
Then, in 1974, Bowler and Thorne found a skeleton sprinkled with
powdered red ochre in a grave only 450 metres away.[sup]5[/sup]
This one was well preserved and similar to the skeletons of
modern Aborigines. Because the new skeleton, Lake Mungo 3, was
found in the same sand bed (technically the same stratigraphic
horizon), ‘he’ was assigned the same age as Mungo Woman. Thus
Mungo Man became famous too—one of the world’s earliest ritual
burials (even though the sex of the individual is still in
dispute[sup]6[/sup]).
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.toequest.com/gallery/data/511/LakeMungoMan.jpg[/img]
Lake Mungo Man
The situation became even more exciting when a different dating
method (thermoluminescence, see Dating methods) was used. In
1998, Bowler reported that sand from the Mungo [sup]3[/sup] site
gave an age of some 42,000 years.[sup]5,7[/sup] Being older than
the carbon-14 dates, Mungo Man acquired a new stature on the
world evolution scene. So, the earlier ‘reliable’ carbon-14 ages
were abandoned in favour of the thermoluminescence ones. ;)
Then, in 1999, Thorne (not to be outdone) and other scientists
from the Australian National University published a new
comprehensive study on the age of Mungo Man. They used different
samples of bone and sand and different dating
methods—electron-spin resonance (ESR), optically-stimulated
luminescence (OSL), thorium-uranium (Th/U) and
protactinium-uranium (Pa/U). [I](Don’t worry about the big
names. See Dating methods)[/I].
And the results from all the different methods agreed closely.
Their conclusion? Mungo Man was 62,000 years old! Bowler and
Magee described this 20,000-year stretch as ‘commendable in
intent.’[sup]8[/sup]
There was just one small problem. The new date meant that the
history of Australian occupation would have to be rewritten and
it also affected the ideas of human evolution in other parts of
the world. And Australian archaeologists were still embarrassed
by the Jinmium rock shelter fiasco, where a claimed age of
116,000 years was later reduced to 5,000 years.[sup]9[/sup]
So, Bowler stubbornly refused to accept the new dates. In his
protest to Journal of Human Evolution, he said ‘For this
complex, laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must
be compatible with the external field evidence.’[sup]8[/sup] In
other words, you don’t just accept a laboratory date without
question. It’s not the last word on the age of something. You
only accept the date if it agrees with what you already think it
should be. ???
And that is what we have been saying all along.[sup]10[/sup]
That is why we won’t accept any date that contradicts the
eyewitness evidence of human history recorded in the Bible.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Such contradictory dates can’t be right.
In short, the dates are wrong because they are based on wrong
assumptions. For example, the carbon-14 method does not account
for the disruption of the carbon balance during the Flood some
4,500 years ago.[sup]11[/sup] The uranium methods do not make
the correct assumptions about the initial conditions of the
samples or about the effects of changing environmental
conditions through time. The luminescence dates have the same
problem.
So, who are Mungo Man and Mungo Woman? Like us, they descended
from Noah and his family (Genesis 10). After the Flood, and
after the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis
11), their ancestors migrated to Australia. As the populations
grew, they spread out over the continent. During the Ice Age,
when rainfall was higher, Lake Mungo would have been a lush area
to live in, teeming with wildlife.
[quote]Evolution and the first Australians[sup]1[/sup]
Darwin considered the Australian Aborigines as primitive and not
much evolved from the ‘anthropoid apes’. He anticipated that the
‘wilder races’ would become extinct because survival of the
fittest meant they would be superseded by the
evolutionarily-advanced ‘civilised’ races.[sup]2[/sup] An
evolutionary view of human origins underlies the World Heritage
listing of the Lake Mungo site. Such a view was not good for the
first Australians. Many atrocities were perpetrated on
Aboriginal communities because of these evolutionary beliefs.
Incredibly, in the 1800s, it was not uncommon for Aboriginal
people to be hunted and shot as specimens for
science.[sup]3[/sup] Their remains were sent to Europe to
illustrate evolution displays in museums. Only now are these
remains being returned to their communities.[sup]4[/sup]
But the Bible records our true human history. The first
Aboriginal settlers to Australia were descended from people as
intelligent and inventive as any other culture at that time.
Like everyone else, they were descended from Noah, who built and
managed the Ark, and from a people who developed an advanced
civilization around the Tower of Babel.[sup]5[/sup]
The Aborigines of Australia lost some of their technological
know-how—it can happen in a generation if parents do not pass it
on to their children. (Perhaps it was because of isolation and
the pressure to cope with a worsening climate as the continent
dried out after the Ice Age.) They, like other peoples, are made
‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26).
References and notes
1.For more information, see One Human Family.
2.Darwin, C., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to
Sex, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, p. 188, 1887.
3.Wieland, C., Darwin’s bodysnatchers: new horrors, Creation
14(2):16–18, 1992.
4.Aboriginal remains returned to Coorong tribe, ABC Canberra
News, www.abc.net.au/canberra/news/metact-5may2003-2.htm, 5 May
2003.
5.For more information, see: McKeever, S. and Sarfati, J., Was
Adam from Australia? The mystery of Mungo Man, 17 January 2001,
updated 20 February 2003.
[/quote]
HTML http://creation.com/the-dating-game
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page