DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Sober Thinking
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 613--------------------------------------------------
       "Darwin admitted that if no such links were discovered,
       then his theory would be incorrect."
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: October 24, 2022, 12:42 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [center]
  HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013160639.png[/center]
       [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
  HTML http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=22
       #Post#: 614--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Darwin
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: October 24, 2022, 1:02 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       AGelbert NOTE: This post is part of a LONG back and forth
       between defenders of Darwin and
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090422150144.png<br
       />myself. It was originally posted June 5, 2018
  HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg9786/#msg9786<br
       />in my Renewable Revolution Forum.
       --- Quote from: Palloy2 link ---
       >
       > [quote]AG: Once again, you make this categorical statement
       about "how evolution proceeds" as if I had not heard that mantra
       repeated ad nauseum throughout my college experience.
       --- End Quote ---
       All good explanations start at the beginning, so everyone (not
       just you) understands what we are talking about.  Why "ad
       nauseam"?  - When you were at college, did the repetition of the
       explanation  of Darwinian evolution really make you sick?
       Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world
       believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US follow
       Creationism/Intelligent Design.  The Roman Catholic Church
       rejects ID as unscientific.  Why call it a "mantra" as if it had
       mystical Hindu powers? You accuse me of making "ad hominem false
       accusations", without quoting any , because there are none.
       [/quote]
       You love to twist words, don't you? I used the word "mantra" in
       regard to your penchant for unnecessarily repetitious
       statements. Mysticism is the last thing I would accuse you of.
       ;D
       It is true that all good explanations start at the beginning.
       That beginning, however, must not be laced with arrogant
       posturing as you ad neauseum are so fond of doing in your snide
       filled sophistic modus operandi. True, I am guilty of answering
       your grossly inaccurate assumptions about evolution with
       sarcasm. But, I only resorted to doing that when you showed an
       inability to deal with this issue politely and respectfully when
       you resorted to ad hominum sneering and mocking.
       There are many scientists who argue, point by point, why the
       Standard Theory of Evolution is not backed by science (see
       below). This flies in the face of this erroneous assumption by
       you:
       --- Quote ---
       > Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world
       believes, ...
       --- End Quote ---
       
       I will not debate this subject with you as long as you flat
       refuse to address irrefutable points like the TIME it would
       actually take to "evolve" a simple bacterium like Escherichia
       coli or any of these other points:
       --- Quote ---
       > *Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a
       single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in
       the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce
       it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria
       covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5
       billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli
       contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number
       10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical
       impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on
       his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin
       (red blood cells).
       >
       > Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of
       120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At
       least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3
       nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide
       change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and
       kills the organism!
       >
       > *George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive
       research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE
       mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin
       would not function properly. For example, the change of one
       amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A
       glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a
       result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.
       --- End Quote ---
       Mind you, a bacterium is a prokariotic organism, far simply than
       the eukaryotes (eukaryote: any organism having as its
       fundamental structural unit a cell type that contains
       specialized organelles in the cytoplasm, a membrane-bound
       nucleus enclosing genetic material organized into chromosomes,
       and an elaborate system of division by mitosis or meiosis,
       characteristic of all life forms except bacteria, blue-green
       algae, and other primitive microorganisms).
       There just was not enough time in our 14 billion year old
       universe (or a universe multiples of billions of years older,
       for that matter - but we will leave it at around 14 billion
       years for now because that is the current scientific consensus
       ;)) for such complexity to have "evolved". But, it's here, isn't
       it?
       In the face of the above the Bartel and Szostak experiment was
       formulated to dance around the probabilty math that undermined
       evolution theory. The Bartel and Szostak experiment is proof of
       nothing but some creative speculation from gel electrophoresis
       results showing an increased catalytic activity of lifeless RNA
       nucleotides. The probabilty math hurdle (i.e. amount of time
       required) for the "evolution" of the life complexity we observe
       in nature to have occurred by random processes is
       insurmountable.
       You refuse to address the blatant flasehoods pushed in the
       conclusions of that experment. So do not talk to me about "good
       explanations" starting at the beginning. YOU are the one who
       does not want to start at the BEGINNING. Your ad nauseum
       repetition of evolutionist mantra is NOT for the purpose of
       "explanation", as was done in college, but for the ad hominem
       purpose of giving the readers here the impression that I am
       ignorant of all that mantra. &#128078;
       [move]Where and How life began on Earth according to
       Evolutionists (see below):[/move]
       [center]
  HTML https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/108949049/views/1,width=650,height=650,appearanceId=1,version=1385952966/we-all-originate-from-this-soup.jpg[/center]
       --- Quote ---
       > Palloy: Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire
       world believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US
       follow Creationism/Intelligent Design.
       --- End Quote ---
       [center]
  HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png[/center]<br
       />
       --- Quote ---
       > [center]A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism[/center]
       >
       > During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many
       scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology,
       “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused
       scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of
       natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in
       greater detail.
       >
       > Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and
       science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of
       evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The
       public has been assured that all known evidence supports
       Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world
       believes the theory to be true.
       >
       > The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand
       as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since
       Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of
       scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their
       names.
       >
       > The list is growing and includes scientists from the US
       National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech
       National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale,
       Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.
       >
       > A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
       >
       > “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation
       and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
       Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should
       be encouraged.”
       >
       > “There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be
       heard.”
       >
       > Download the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list
  HTML http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
       >
       > Add your name to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list
  HTML https://dissentfromdarwin.org/sign-the-list/
       >
       >
       > RECENT POSTS:
       >
       > Professor Colin Reeves, Coventry University
  HTML https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/09/22/professor_colin_reeves_coventr/
       >
       > [size=10pt]Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th
       century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not
       properly scientific, framework into which we could fit
       biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days
       of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create
       complex biological systems – and we still have little more than
       handwaving as an argument in its favour.
       >
       > Professor Colin Reeves
       > Dept of Mathematical Sciences
       > Coventry University
       >
       > Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps
       Institute)
  HTML https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/09/02/edward_peltzer_university_of_c/
       >
       > As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves
       around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no
       biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all
       time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the
       beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to
       the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And
       what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided
       as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the
       decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the
       synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent
       (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and
       “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any
       progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and
       very far from where we need to get.
       >
       > Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for
       something more than just time and chance. And whether that be
       simply a highly specified set of initial conditions
       (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life
       ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the
       random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are
       often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these
       reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current
       Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this
       area.
       >
       > Edward Peltzer
       > Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
       (Scripps Institute)
       > Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
       >
       > Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
  HTML https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/08/11/chris_williams_phd_biochemistr/
       >
       > As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic
       and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the
       incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a
       vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell
       that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how
       to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together
       in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside
       of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can
       provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life,
       and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first
       self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it
       even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it
       even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules
       arise before natural selection?
       >
       > Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to
       amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the
       foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation,
       and little if no fact.
       > [/size]
       --- End Quote ---
  HTML https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/
  HTML https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/
       Agelbert NOTE:  This engineer's comment that I found surfing the
       internet pretty much summarises the truth about our reality. In
       the here and now, we cannot create even the simpliest of life
       forms, yet the evolutionists ass-u-me that there is no Creator.
       --- Quote ---
       > John T (February 8, 2018 11:08 AM)
       >
       > There may be much research attempting to prove evolution is
       the mechanism by which life appeared and progressed. The very
       foundations on which biological evolution stand, however, rest
       on sand which is quickly washing away.
       >
       > No evidence exists to show how life spontaneously arose and as
       more is learned, the immense complexity of life, even in its
       simplest forms, demonstrates insurmountable obstacles to the
       beginnings of life without the work of a master engineer.
       >
       > As an engineer, I understand that even the simplest of designs
       will never function without much thought and planning. How could
       it possibly be that life, so immensely complex that it is not
       completely understood by our most learned scholars, could have
       used random mutations to go from molecules to the variety we
       see. To believe this is foolishness! If all the world’s
       resources would put into creating life right now from molecules,
       it could not be done!
       >
       > Now add in the ideas of consciousness, intellect and love...
       it is a wonderful creation we live in!
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 615--------------------------------------------------
       Only material from evolutionists is used to illustrate that even
       adherents to the theory agree that the predictions are 
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: October 24, 2022, 1:18 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Orignally [color=black]posted
  HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg9890/#msg9890<br
       />June 13, 2018.[/color]
       Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced
       material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses
       &#128300; to the common objections of evolutionists to their
       theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
       
       You can view previous objections and the responses to them by
       scrolling this topic thread.
       After this section is completed, we will move on to the
       importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory
       Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed
       predictions.
       Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed
       in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that
       the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it
       to save the reader some time.
       Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always
       including the references. These scholarly references are
       important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them
       and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link.
       [size=18pt].DarwinsPredictions[/size]
       [center]This section examines various concerns evolutionists
       often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.[/center]
       [center]Responses to common objections[/center]
       False predictions often have led to productive research
       Productive research can come from a great variety of scientific
       and nonscientific motivations, including false predictions. That
       productive research may have arisen from some of these
       predictions does not detract from the fact that they are false.
       Evolutionists have fixed these false predictions
       A proponent of a theory, given sufficient motivation, can
       explain all kinds of contradictory findings. (Quine) Typically,
       however, there is a price to be paid as the theory becomes more
       complex and has less explanatory power.
       Ad hominem and denial
       Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal
       attacks are common. Such attacks, however, do not change the
       fact that evolution has generated many false predictions. Also,
       evolutionists sometimes ignore or deny the unexpected findings.
       They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as “tired
       old arguments,” or fallacies without following up such
       criticisms with supporting details.
       Falsificationism is flawed
       It has been argued that in order to qualify as science, ideas
       and theories need to be falsifiable. Also, falsified predictions
       are sometimes used to argue a theory is false. Such naïve
       falsificationism is flawed (Popper) and not used here.
       Evolution’s many false predictions do not demonstrate that
       evolution is not science or that evolution is false.
       False predictions are valuable in judging the quality of a
       theory, its explanatory power, and for improving our scientific
       understanding in general. Nonetheless, evolutionists sometimes
       reject any mention of their theory’s false predictions as mere
       naïve falsificationism. The failures of naïve falsificationism
       do not give evolutionists a license to ignore substantial and
       fundamental failures of their theory.
       If there are so many problems evolution would have been toppled
       This objection falls under the category of naïve
       falsificationism. Science is a reactive process. New evidence is
       processed, and theories are adjusted accordingly. But science
       can also be a conservative process, sustaining substantial
       problems before reevaluating a theory. Therefore the
       reevaluation of a theory takes time. The fact that there are
       problems is no guarantee a theory will have been toppled.
       (Lakatos; Chalmers)
       Those quoted believe in evolution
       Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are not cited or
       quoted in this paper. Only material from evolutionists is used
       to illustrate that even adherents to the theory agree that the
       predictions are false.
       These falsifications will be remedied in the future
       As scientists, we need to evaluate scientific theories according
       to the currently available data. No one knows what future data
       may bring, and the claim that future data will rescue evolution
       is ultimately circular.
       There is no better alternative
       One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative
       explanations. This approach has the advantage of circumventing
       the difficulties in evaluating scientific theories. But of
       course any such comparison will crucially depend on what
       alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is
       not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even
       omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not
       yet conceived. (van Fraassen; Stanford) In any case, the success
       or failure of evolution’s predictions depends on the science,
       not on any alternative explanations.
       No one believes these predictions anymore
       Yes, this is the point. It is true that evolutionists have, for
       the most part, dropped many predictions that were once made by
       evolutionists or entailed by the theory. We can learn from this
       failed track record as it has implications for evolution’s
       complexity and explanatory power.
       What about all the
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622202527-13931485.png<br
       />successful predictions?
       Evolutionists argue that evolution is a fact, and that we ought
       to focus on evolution’s successful predictions rather than its
       false predictions. The tendency to seek confirming evidence over
       contrary evidence is known as confirmation bias. (Klayman, Ha)
       One consequence of confirmation bias can be that confirming
       evidence is viewed as correct and typical whereas disconfirming
       evidence is viewed as anomalous and rare. Not surprisingly the
       confirming evidence is more often retained and documented.
       Rarely are the many false predictions found in evolution texts.
       Confirmation bias can hinder scientific research as
       evolutionists tend to view the predictions of evolution as
       overwhelmingly true. False predictions, on the other hand, are
       usually not viewed as legitimate falsifications but rather as
       open research questions which are yet to be resolved. Indeed,
       evolutionists often make the remarkable claim that there is no
       evidence that is contrary to evolution.
       These falsified predictions are not necessary predictions of
       evolutionary theory. They merely reflect isolated instances of a
       practitioner’s surprise over specific sets of data.
       The predictions were considered to be necessary when they were
       held. And they represented consensus evolutionary science at the
       time they were held. They are well documented in both
       peer-reviewed research papers, popular literature authored by
       leading evolutionists and interviews of leading evolutionists.
       They were not merely held by a few, individual evolutionists.
       Nor were they one of several possible competing predictions.
       That these predictions are not now considered to be necessary
       predictions of evolution is a reflection of the malleability of
       evolutionary theory and is a reminder of why a history of
       evolution’s false predictions is important.
       References
       Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed.
       Indianapolis: Hackett.
       Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation,
       disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W.
       M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and
       Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies.
       Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
       Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational
       reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the
       Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.
       Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London:
       Hutchinson.
       Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The
       Philosophical Review 60:40.
       Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History,
       and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford
       University Press.
       van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon
       Press.
  HTML https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
       #Post#: 616--------------------------------------------------
       We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers
       knew about biology. 
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: October 24, 2022, 1:29 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Originally [color=black]posted
  HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg10131/#msg10131<br
       />July 1, 2018.[/color]
       .DarwinsPredictions
       [center]Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?[/center]
       Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the
       century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences
       has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more
       than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare
       what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects.
       It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by
       Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There
       is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these
       falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails
       an observation that is discovered to be false, then the
       hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.
       When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered
       to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified to
       accommodate the new finding. [b]Broad, umbrella theories, such
       as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. [/b]
       Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to
       explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement
       capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations
       about how evolution actually occurred. In fact evolutionists
       often disagree about these details. So if one explanation,
       dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false
       predictions, there often are alternative explanations available
       to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the
       theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one
       particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.
       Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory.
       (Lakatos) In fact evolutionists argue that false predictions
       made by the theory of evolution are not problems, but rather are
       signs of scientific progress. With each new finding,
       evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred.
       Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to review a theory’s false
       predictions. A theory’s track record can be highly informative.
       The history of false predictions generated by a theory tells us
       about its strengths and weaknesses, and how and why the theory
       is believed to be true.
       In the case of evolutionary theory, its many false predictions
       reveal that the theory is not motivated by the science and that
       the textbook claim that evolution is a fact does not come merely
       from empirical evidence (see Conclusions). Therefore the
       objective of this paper is to collect and record, in one place,
       a sample of the false predictions generated by evolutionary
       theory.
       The predictions examined in this paper were selected according
       to several criteria.
       • They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are
       fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of
       evolutionary thought.
       • They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting
       one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints.
       • Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of
       the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary
       science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but
       rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated.
       • They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not
       controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have
       implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, as
       discussed in the conclusions.
       This paper does not maintain that the predictions presented are
       the only fundamental predictions of evolution, or that evolution
       does not have successful predictions. Those are well documented
       in the literature.
       Nor does this paper maintain that the predictions presented,
       though false, have not served to produce productive research.
       Also, this paper does not maintain that these false predictions
       cannot be remedied or reversed by future scientific findings.
       References
       Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational
       reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the
       Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.
  HTML https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
       #Post#: 668--------------------------------------------------
       Atheist clings to Darwinian belief system in the face of
       irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary.
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: November 22, 2022, 2:25 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       AGelbert NOTE: The following is my final post in this
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622153109-13691906.gif<br
       />back and forth
  HTML https://ongoingclassstruggle.blogspot.com/2022/10/how-cuba-is-dealing-with-devastation-of.html#comment-6021369088.<br
       />
       Alteng, school is out. You refuse to answer the question about
       the physical constants that provide scientific evidence that our
       Universe is not the result of random undirected processes. You
       arm wave with distractions to change the subject to the
       "amenable" Darwinian weeds in order to avoid addressing the
       intellectual bankruptcy of the "Random Universe" Core Evolution
       Theory Claim.
       Here is a partial list of things I do not believe in: I do not
       believe in Astrology, the tooth fairy, the fairy god mother and
       the Darwinist "Directed Panspermia" ID LOONEY TOONS that you and
       fellow atheists think is a "plausible alternative", despite
       irrefutable scientific EVIDENCE that our Universe is NON-RANDOM.
       I believe ALL humans are basically NOT intrinsically ethical,
       though ALL humans who are not mentally retarded know the
       difference between good and evil. I believe we are ALL basically
       lovers of self. THAT is the reason humans DO EVIL. THAT (SEE:
       Fallen Nature) is the reason we ALL need a Savior. I believe
       that Jesus Christ bought my Salvation with His Death on the
       Cross. He is my Lord and Savior.
       I believe ONLY humans who WALK the "Do unto others as you would
       have them do unto you." TALK are Christians. ALL Religious
       Hypocrites that DO NOT WALK THE TALK are ANTI-Christians.
       Faithfully following the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE is not
       "situational ethics optional" for a Christian.
       I believe there is more hope for atheists who do their ethical
       best to live by the Golden Rule than for Anti-Christians who
       pretend to do so. God is not mocked.
       &#128073; "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a
       man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his
       flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to
       the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians
       6:7-8 &#10024;
       Alteng, you do not wish to reason; you unreasonably cling to
       your Darwinian belief system in the face of irrefutable
       scientific evidence to the contrary. I will pray that, before
       you die, God will Enlighten your darkness. I was an atheist from
       the age of 18 to the age of 28, when I could no longer pretend
       that the Universe is the result of random undirected processes.
       I was a hard case. If God could &#128330;&#65039; convince
       greedy, adulterous, Republican moron me of the TRUTH, I am
       certain He can &#128330;&#65039; reach you.
       For those who want to pursue the subject of whether or not
       Evolution Theory is reality based, the following posts wilI be
       of  service.
       &#128367;&#65039; 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. …
       &#128226; I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil
       for which one could make a watertight argument.
       "Darwin admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his
       theory would be incorrect."
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg613/?topicseen#msg613
       &#128367;&#65039; June 2018 &#128073; I will not debate this
       subject with you as long as you flat refuse to address
       irrefutable points like the TIME it would ACTUALLY TAKE to
       "evolve" a simple bacterium like Escherichia coli or any of
       these other points:
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg614/#msg614
       &#128367;&#65039; These scholarly references are important to
       credible debate: "Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are
       not cited or quoted in this paper. Only material from
       evolutionists is used to illustrate that even adherents to the
       theory agree that the predictions are false."
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg615/#msg615
       &#128367;&#65039; "It is not controversial that a great many
       predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found
       to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to
       interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis
       predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be
       false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in
       science.
       When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered
       to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified to
       accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as
       evolution, are particularly amenable to &#128521; adjustments."
       Read more:
       Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg616/#msg616
       #Post#: 674--------------------------------------------------
       The evolution of a new species, “Homo fetus” to Homo sapiens —
       occurring with each pregnancy? 
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: November 30, 2022, 10:46 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://evolutionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Logo-Box.png
       May 11, 2022 by Michael Egnor
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-120422122257-657398.png
       [center]If a Fetus Isn’t a Human Being, What Is It?[/center]
       SNIPPET:
       The Critical Scientific Issue
       So the critical scientific issue at the heart of the question
       “when does human life begin” is: What scientific description of
       the tissue (let’s call it the “fetus” for brevity) before human
       life begins makes sense biologically? Consider the options:
       1. The fetus is a part of the mother’s body.
       2. The fetus is not part of the mother’s body, but is an
       individual of another species.
       3. The fetus is not any kind of living thing — it’s just a clump
       of biological molecules undergoing chemical reactions.
       Consider the scientific implications of each option:
       Full UNVARNISHED TRUTH FILLLED article:
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422164615-5351419.gif
  HTML https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/if-a-fetus-isnt-a-human-being-what-is-it/
       #Post#: 677--------------------------------------------------
       Atheists have no sense of Irony 
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: December 2, 2022, 5:14 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Tolben Mølgaard
       --- Quote ---
       > “I don’t know, therefore God” is an obvious fallacy.
       --- End Quote ---
       But "I dont know therefore no god" is obviously an equally
       obvious fallacy. To which many otherwise sharp-minded people
       subscribe in the name of science.
       It is every bit as "Scientific" to proclaim the existence of god
       as it is to claim god's non-existence. (I.e. not scientific at
       all).
       —
       edit: i am not arguing the existence of god, I am merely
       pointing out that science has no plausible explanation for the
       existence of everything, and in the absence of a plausible
       explanation, it is decidedly un-scientific to discard the
       possibility of something god-like as the creator of all the
       stuff that we see around us, and for which science hasn't got
       the slightest clue how it came to be.
       "God" is as good an explanation as anything science can put
       forth today. Actually a "god" is considerably less imaginative
       than some of the ideas that science has presented.
       Moreover "god" is the only theory so far, since Science in no
       way or form has made any attempt to present anything remotely
       plausible as to explain the existence of matter and life.
       Science has decided upon a Big Bang theory which may be right,
       but science has no explanation whatsoever to the obvious
       question of the initial impulse. And while the theory may be a
       wonderful description of early events, it is certainly no
       explanation as to why it happened and what triggered it.
       You may of course believe in god or godlessness to your hearts
       fullest content. I really dont care much about whether you feel
       spiritual or not, but be careful not to proclaim your personal
       beliefs or opinions about god as having a scientific foundation.
       There is no such.
       Currently at least.
       Fred-Rick Schermer > Tolben Mølgaard
       A good reply, Torben, much appreciated.
       I am a structural philosopher, and the comment I have to make is
       that the scientific structure is distinct from the religious
       structure.
       With a wink to Gödel, it would not be smart to use either
       structure and demand the other structure submits itself to the
       first structure.
       —
       In Religion, we find the following two distinct structural
       setups:
       Monotheistic structure (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, minor
       branches in Hinduism)
       Non-monotheistic structure (Hinduism, Buddhism)
       in Science, we can recognize the same distinctions, with
       scientists adhering to the idea that:
       There is a unified field of forces possible
       There is no unified field of forces possible
       I hope you recognize right away how the discussion about God is
       often one that is placed far away from reality, and that makes
       very little sense.
       The word God in Greek is Theo, and I hope you see that the
       scientific word theory is based on Theo. What that means is that
       the original word means that God can only be the actual God if
       connected indeed to our reality. Anything less is not worth
       anyone’s time.
       Just like there can be low-quality scientific theories (also not
       worth our time), there are low-quality ideas about God. Only
       when aiming for God as part of our actual reality, only then
       will we end up with high-quality ideas about God, just like only
       high-quality theories sustain a long life in science.
       Just like one cannot use the grammar rules of Mandarin to
       English or vice versa, no one should demand that religion must
       follow the rules of science (or vice versa).
       Must we make God real? Yes, absolutely, and that is actually a
       very easy exercise that should satisfy everyone.
       Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick Schermer
       Well, our universe is not random, as all those very precise
       physical constants that caused matter to coalesce after the Big
       Bang prove. So, our universe has a Creator. That is, a
       superbeing outside of time and space who intelligently designed
       it. The “Creator of the Universe” is an adequate definition of
       “God”. The atheists hate that definition, for obvious reasons.
       So, they came up with the “Multiverse” wishful thinking, which
       is totally devoid of any scientific evidence whatsoever. They
       are as math challenged as they are cursed by magical thinking.
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-260322171228.png[/center]
       Fred-Rick Schermer > Anthony G. Gelbert
       I dislike the idea of a multiverse very much, Anthony, so we can
       shake hands there. It is such a weird concept, completely a
       brain fart.
       Yet in as far as the word God is used, the original God can no
       longer exist as the exact same God today because God had to use
       parts of God to create creation. It is a brain fart of a
       different kind to think that God could have willed creation from
       nothing.
       So, God split into two realities: the very large remnant still
       in original format (but diminished), and the material outcomes
       (in which we have linear matter with protons and neutrons and
       non-linear matter with electrons).
       As such, there is no Almighty to God because the split that
       occurred is the highest aspect. This is much like space being
       the only infinite aspect in our universe. Even God as God exists
       today must bow to Space being larger than God.
       Curious how you will respond.
       Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick Schermer
       Well, I like the fact that you have thought seriously about this
       matter.
       I understand you to mean that a “brain fart” is the act of
       failing to use evidence based critical thinking to arrive at a
       conclusion about some subject matter. Okay, going with that, the
       “multiverse”, a concept totally within the realm of science
       fiction, becomes a brain fart when it is championed by atheists
       as “fact”.
       On the issue of God (i.e. a Superbeing that exists outside of
       time and space) ceasing to be Almighty (and therefore, no longer
       “God”) the instant God Created the Universe, I don’t see that as
       a no-go situation for God.
       Your assumption appears to be based on God being the servant of
       the physical constants that govern all matter in the Universe,
       rather than the Designer and Creator of them.
       IMHO, God is a Spirit. God is not subject to entropy, E=MC
       squared and so on. The Creation of the physical Universe did not
       take anything at all “out” of God, because there is nothing in
       God that is limited by material reality.
       The only way your assumption would logically relegate the belief
       that there is an Almighty God that Created our Universe, and all
       Life in it, to the status of “brain fart”, is IF the material
       universe is all there is. I am certain that is a flawed
       assumption.
       Since I have quite a bit of, admittedly anecdotal, irrrefutable
       evidence that there is a spiritual reality outside of the
       material cause and effect reality, I see no impediment to the
       belief that God continued to be God Almighty after Creating our
       Universe.
       All that said, if you firmly believe that Atheism is “reality
       based” and Theism is a “brain fart”, aren’t you buying into the
       “random” universe meme pushed 24/7 by atheists everywhere?
       How do you rationalize all those extremely precise physical
       constants evidencing that our universe is NOT the result of
       random undirected processes? Science has now irrefutably proven
       that our Universe is NON-Random. A logical person must then
       accept the fact that a Superbeing Created this Universe. That
       ‘WHO DID IT?’ “buck” cannot be “passed” on to the “What
       Superbeing ET created the Superbeing that Created this
       Universe?” grasped straw, though there are quite a few atheists
       out there who support that semantic legerdemain.
       When you think about it, what atheists peddle is a gross
       misrepresentation of reality and lying to the degree that would
       make the most abusive adds on media blush.
       Darwinian Theory true believers (SEE: "Evolutionary" Biologist
       Dawkins' Book "Blind &#128580; Watch Maker" monument to
       disingenuous legerdemain) are willing to twist and contort even
       the fundamental requirement of the Scientific Method to
       invalidate the "Random Universe" Evolution Hypothesis in ways
       that cater to entrenched university ivory tower defenders of
       Evolution to a degree that would rival a toy balloon-dog at a
       children’s party (SEE: irrefutable empirical evidence of several
       non-random, extremely precise physical constants that
       determined, before the first atom of hydrogen came into
       existence, the exact physical constant for the force of gravity,
       by several THOUSAND places to the RIGHT of the decimal point,
       that, if greater or lesser, atoms could not even coalesce into
       existence after the Big Bang).
       It is this kind of academic institutionalized acquiescence to
       atheism based Darwinan ideology that has led many to rightfully
       conclude that Darwinian "Theory" is an athiest belief system
       masquerading as a "Scientifc" Theory for the ethically bankrupt
       purpose of promoting the "might equals right" socially
       destructive ideology of Social Darwinism.
       It’s the SOCIAL DARWINISM, stupid!
       Darwinists with advanced degrees in "Evolutionary" Biology,
       firmly ensconced in their "We Are Scientists" Ivory Towers in
       Academia for more than a century, have been "self-esteemed" into
       levels of grandiose narcissism that I suspect is unparalleled in
       human history. When you try to point out to these scientists
       that they are unscientifically ignoring those MANY extremely
       precise physical constants that evidence the fact that, by any
       Darwinian stretch of the imagination, our universe is not the
       product of random undirected processes, you might as well be
       talking to a box of rocks. These militant atheists KNOW
       EVERYTHING and are absolutely certain of it.
       Whenever a Darwinist "Scientist" starts telling you how
       "ignorant" you are of the "science" of evolution by
       condescendingly pointing out your "lack" of academic
       credentials, followed by questioning your ability to reason and,
       when that don't work, questioning your intelligence, remember
       this wise old saying:
       Never buy something when the seller tells you that you are too
       dumb to understand the product.
       Fred-Rick Schermer > Anthony G. Gelbert
       You are not reading what I am writing, Anthony, so there is very
       little to reply to since you are putting words on my side that
       are not the intended message.
       I will take the blame. I was not clear enough in my writing.
       But do allow me to undermine the word Almighty, because it is a
       word that cannot be.
       All = 1
       Mighty = 1st
       Never ever can there be anything that is both 1 and 1st at the
       same time. So, it is a brain fart, just like a teacher wanting
       his students to all do better on a test than their average
       result. The construct cannot be and is therefore established by
       a brain that did not mature in this respect.
       God can be Mightiest, of course, and God can even be All. Yet
       God cannot be All and Mightiest at the same time/in the same
       construct. We need to have two separate constructs about God to
       declare both different things.
       ————
       If we start out with God (which is a choice), then we can demand
       that we make this God real.
       To make this God real, we have to desire a real answer to the
       question How did God do it?
       By saying that God created creation from nothing (or: at will),
       we have two steps to accept based on nothing much, and that
       undermines the original step that we accepted.
       If we want to accept the option to see God as real, we must then
       next get a real answer and not an additional step of acceptance.
       The structure is extremely weak with two such steps.
       I hope you see that we have to use our brains to get an answer
       to how God created creation and that we can indeed have a baby
       in the bathwater, but that we should not drown the baby by
       adding more bathwater. We have to make God real, structurally
       real.
       ———
       Saying this in a scientific manner, we have three options from a
       structural perspective. Two are not possible, but our brains can
       see all three structures.
       1. Everything material that exists now derived from nothing.
       2. Everything material that exists now derived from everything
       that existed prior.
       3. Everything material that exists now derived from a part of
       what existed prior.
       Only option 3 is logical. Options #1 and #2 are not possible.
       With #1: one cannot have something material come from nothing.
       With #2: one cannot end up with a material outcome if that
       outcome was based on the full set of whatever it was that
       existed prior. Had that been the case, then this would last a
       zap (say 15 seconds max), and then quickly return to its
       original state. A change of 100% is not a stable outcome and
       will always return to its original state.
       Only #3 is available to us. No other structure is structurally
       possible. A fundamental separation is part of the structure —
       there is no other option.
       Same for God. We can make God real. Yet God’s creation has to be
       based on parts of God being used for that creation. A separation
       occurred 13.8 billion years ago among that prior state.
       ———
       Thank you, Anthony, for your reply. I did appreciate it, but it
       did not address the finer points I hope are more clear now.
       Apologies therefore that I wasn’t clearer right away.
       Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick Schermer
       Oh, I’m reading it all right, you just refuse to accept that it
       is logical to include the following option in your list of
       possible options:
       4. Everything material that exists now was created by (not
       “derived” from) the almighty superbeing (i.e. God) spirit that
       exists outside of space and time.
       I know you cannot accept that because you cannot accept that
       there is anything more than the material Universe. Thus, it is
       logical for you to deny the most basic attributes of the
       Superbeing that created our Universe.
       IMHO, your basic premise is flawed, so your conclusions, derived
       from that flawed premise, are erroneous.
       As to your, admittedly erudite, semantics based interpretations
       of word definitions for the purpose of excluding any adjective
       describing one of the attributes of God (e.g. Almighty) from
       rational discussion, see Procrustean Bed.
       If you wish to Procrustean Bed your way out of the irrefutable
       (i.e. empirically measured) science of the physical constants,
       thousands of places to the right of the decimal point, that
       evidence the inconvenient fact (for you atheists) that our
       Universe is not the result of random undirected processes, but
       an intelligently designed product of a Superbeing that Created
       it from absolutely nothing material, then you are quite right to
       assume that further attempts on your part to convince me that
       your reasoning is “logical” and mine is “illogical” are futile.
       Atheists, in the face of hard scientifc evidence to the
       contrary, firmly believe that Life in our Universe is the
       product of random undirected processes. Then, adding a second
       level to their flawed reasoning, they have the audacity to
       firmly assert that humans, allegedly the product of random
       undirected processes, can have an ethical worldview. In view of
       this self serving illogical assertion, their claim that belief
       in the almighty God is “illogical” is the epitome of irony.
       I just ask you to try to remember that billions of humans do
       their level best to treat other humans as they wish to be
       treated because of their firm Faith in God. To you, these people
       are “sadly deluded”. Not only is this presumption unfairly
       disdaining the reasoning ability of billions of humans, but, for
       those you convince that belief in God is “illogical”, a
       dangerous, ethics rejecting, socially destructive worldview.
       "if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor
       Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
       Human Inequity is directly proportional to Human Iniquity. - A.
       G. Gelbert
       SOURCE:
  HTML https://www.quora.com/What-caused-the-Big-Bang-6/answers/74541372?comment_id=304391733&comment_type=2
       #Post#: 680--------------------------------------------------
       Aquinas &#128073; As &#9757;&#127995; God rules in the world,
       the &quot;plan &#10024; of the order of things&quot; preexists
       in him
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: December 3, 2022, 1:15 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090422150144.png<br
       />Continued
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622153109-13691906.gif<br
       />from Atheists have no sense of Irony
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg677/#msg677:
       Fred-Rick Schermer > Anthony G. Gelbert
       Sorry, but you are still not reading my position correctly,
       Anthony. I will have to declare my position better, and I will
       try to do this in opposition to what atheists would like reality
       to be.
       Today, God still exists. Yet the situation is such that the
       original God prior to creation is not the same as the current
       God.
       I hope this quickly takes the hurdle away that you are placing
       in front of me. Instead of rejecting God, I insist we get a
       better view on God.
       Yes, God is immaterial, and yet God is actually part of our
       material reality as well.
       I hope this will shock you a little, partly because you were not
       reading my words well. I have to shake you so you are paying
       attention.
       A/ We can start out with God that originally was whole.
       B/ We start from 1, and yet today we are not 1 (if we were 1, we
       would be God). Something occurred: creation.
       Today, we have:
       1/ The divine immaterial reality
       2/ The material reality that was created
       It turns out that the material reality that was created is not
       of one and the same kind. Rather, it is linear in essence with
       neutrons and protons, and it is non-linear with the electrons.
       That describes all matter at the subatomic level.
       This means that when discussing realities, there are actually
       three realities:
       1/ the divine
       2/ the linear material
       3/ the in-between non-linear material (half material/half
       divine)
       —
       Anthony, I know I present a different explanation than either
       atheists or monotheists.
       You need not agree. But from your reply, I see your buttons are
       pressed about atheists, and that means you did not read my
       position correctly.
       By now, I hope you do. Again, you need not agree with me. But my
       goal is that you see what I present correctly
       Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick Schermer
       That expression, “buttons pushed”, once again shows you lack a
       sense of irony. And yes, I do continue to insist that you are
       the one putting up hurdles, not me. Your arbitrary standard
       (i.e. Procrustean Bed) for the attributes of God is simply a
       play on words. Yes , my friend, I believe your are a functional
       atheist, whether you wish to admit it or not. How can I come to
       that seemingly irrational conclusion when you consistently claim
       that you are not an atheist? I will explain.
       I see nothing in your writing about our debt to God for making
       the decision to Create us. Aquinas knew what he was talking
       about when he wrote Aquinas knew what he was talking about when
       he wrote [As God rules in the world, the "plan of the order of
       things" preexists in him; in other words, his providence and the
       exercise of it in his government are what condition as cause
       everything which comes to pass in the world.] in Summa
       Theologiae
  HTML https://sumateologica.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/summa-theologica/.<br
       />I see nothing in your writing about the need all humans have
       to
       worship God in order to overcome iniquity and have consistently
       ethical behavior.
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-031222123720.jpeg[/center]
       All atheists scoff at the very idea that humans must “Fear God”.
       I see absolutely no inclination on your part to Fear God, so,
       rather than responding to you because my “buttons were pushed”,
       I am simply using my critical thinking skills to see where you
       actually are coming from with this attempt to take a middle road
       between Atheists and Theists. You are, pardon the metaphor,
       semantically trying to be “half pregnant”.
       Again, all this back and forth is based on your novel definition
       of “God”. I get it. You want credit for some new thinking about
       what God “really is”. So, I asked myself, how is the modus
       vivendi of a person who agrees with your theory different from
       that of an atheist? I couldn’t find any qualitative or
       quantitative differences. You are silent as death about good and
       evil, which is consistent with the atheist amoral worldview.
       Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in your writing that
       implies, in any way, shape or form, that you believe humans have
       an immaterial immortal soul (i.e. a spirit, unique to each and
       every human). Therefore, I can only conclude that you eschew the
       Theistic tenet that worship of God (i.e. “Fear” = Worship) is
       sine qua non for human Salvation. IOW, what we have here is
       functional atheism without the “atheist” label.
       I cede the floor to Sir Francis Bacon:
       Sir Francis Bacon was critical in the development of the
       scientific method, and, thus, being a philosophical/scientific
       giant, atheists have attempted to recruit him as a supporter of
       unbelief. Again they do so in vain, as Bacon made his religious
       views quite clear in some of his works, and they are clearly
       reflective of Christian beliefs. Ironically, he also expressed
       his disdain for atheism, as shown below.
       "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to
       atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man's mind to
       religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes
       scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but
       when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked
       together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."(Bacon, 64)
       “They that deny a God destroy man's nobility; for certainly man
       is of kin to the beasts in his body; and, if he be not of kin to
       God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.” (Bacon,
       67)
       “It is better to have no opinion of God at all, than such an
       opinion as is unworthy of him: for the one is unbelief the other
       is contumely; and certainly superstition is the reproach of the
       Deity.” (Bacon, 68)
       Bacon, F. The Essays of Lord Bacon. London: Longman and Green
       Co., 1875.
       #Post#: 682--------------------------------------------------
       A Mousetrap for Darwin &#128513;
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: December 4, 2022, 1:34 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [center]Michael Behe
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-110422180554-644315.gif:<br
       />A Mousetrap for &#129421; Darwin[/center]
       [center]
  HTML https://youtu.be/rBxSh0ZInng[/center]
       Discovery Science 180K subscribers
       27,960 views  Nov 24, 2020
       Biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, Darwin
       Devolves, and other books, discusses his new book A Mousetrap
       for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics with John  West,
       Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture, and
       fields questions from an international audience.
       You can get Behe's new book here:
  HTML https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910/
       ============================
       The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube
       channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
       The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and
       inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling
       evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research,
       sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce
       articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information
       visit
  HTML https://www.discovery.org/id/
  HTML http://www.evolutionnews.org/
  HTML http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
       #Post#: 702--------------------------------------------------
       EVOLUTION IS a Religion of Greed, Cruelty and Death based on
       ATHEISM.
   DIR By: AGelbert
       Date: December 10, 2022, 6:23 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422180550-8141042.png[/center]
       Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution birthed the Social Darwinist
       Ideology that has, to the detriment of human society for nearly
       150 years now, worked against ethics in human actions.
       
       WHY?
       
       Because Social Darwinists believe that ethics based principles
       are 'limitations pretending to be virtues'. To them, ethics are
       'feel good illusions' that humans invented to pretend our
       species has empathy. To Social Darwinists, empathy is
       irrefutable evidence of inexcusable weakness. To them, all who
       are guided by ethics are deluded fools that should be eliminated
       from the human 'apex predator' gene pool for the "good" of our
       species.
       Social Darwinists believe that the dictum, “survival of the
       fittest” (a term coined not by Charles Darwin but by sociologist
       Herbert Spencer), means that only the "fittest" should survive.
       Darwin's book published later ("Descent of Man") made it clear
       that Darwin completely supported the morally bankrupt views of
       Spencer.
       Enthusiastic converts to Social Darwinism have, to this day,
       used the language of evolution to frame an understanding of the
       growing gulf between the rich and the poor, as well as the many
       differences between cultures all over the world. The explanation
       they arrived at, and continue to use to justify biosphere
       trashing profit over people and planet, regardless of any
       alligator tear filled mendacious claims to the contrary, is that
       businessmen and others who are economically and socially
       successful are so because they are biologically and socially
       “naturally” the fittest. &#128580;&#129300;
       Conversely, they reason that the poor are “naturally” weak and
       unfit and it would be an error to allow the weak of the species
       to continue to breed.
       
       The ideology of the Social Darwinist is indistinguishable from
       the despicable ideology of NAZI Germany, clearly exemplified in
       their brutally enforced morally bankrupt concentration camp law:
       “Eat your own bread, and if you can, that of your neighbor.”
       EVOLUTION IS a Religion of Greed, Cruelty and Death based on
       ATHEISM.
       --- Quote ---
       > "if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor
       Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
       --- End Quote ---
       Darwin was right to worry that scientifc evidence would be fatal
       to his "theory of descent with slow modification through natural
       selection":
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522171847-12792299.png[/center]
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522171947-1282493.png[/center]
       The "Theory" of Evolution is, not only unscientifc speculation,
       but a morally bankrupt atheist belief system that celebrates
       Death. If you do not agree, then you need to read exactly what
       Darwin wrote:
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422202930.png[/center]
       Darwinian Theory true believers (SEE: "Evolutionary" Biologist
       &#128520; Dawkins' Book "Blind &#128580; Watch Maker" monument
       to disingenuous legerdemain) are willing to twist and contort
       even the fundamental requirement of the Scientific Method to
       invalidate the "Random Universe" Evolution Hypothesis in ways
       that cater to entrenched university ivory tower defenders of
       Evolution to a degree that would rival a toy balloon-dog at a
       children’s party (SEE: irrefutable empirical evidence of several
       non-random, extremely precise physical constants that
       determined, before the first atom of hydrogen came into
       existence, the exact physical constant for the force of gravity,
       by several THOUSAND places to the RIGHT of the decimal point,
       that, if greater or lesser, atoms could not even coalesce into
       existence after the Big Bang).
       It is this kind of academic institutionalized acquiescence to
       atheism based Darwinan ideology that has led many to rightfully
       conclude that Darwinian "Theory" is an athiest belief system
       masquerading as a "Scientifc" Theory for the ethically bankrupt
       purpose of promoting the "might equals right" socially
       destructive ideology of Social Darwinism.
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522171910-12801673.png[/center]
       Darwinists with advanced degrees in "Evolutionary" Biology,
       firmly ensconced in their "We Are Scientists" Ivory Towers in
       Academia for more than a century, have been "self-esteemed" into
       levels of grandiose narcissism that I suspect is unparalleled in
       human history. When you try to point out to these scientists
       that they are unscientifically ignoring those MANY extremely
       precise physical constants that evidence the fact that, by any
       Darwinian stretch of the imagination, our universe is not the
       product of random undirected processes, you might as well be
       talking to a box of rocks. These militant atheists KNOW
       EVERYTHING and are absolutely certain of it.
       The morally bankrupt ideology championed by Charles Darwin is
       the culturally corrosive core cause of the calloused behavior,
       totally devoid of empathy, presently embraced by TPTB and much
       of the populace, from the scientists who "dutifully" perform
       agonizingly painful, almost always resulting in maiming or
       death,
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522172557-13261705.jpeghttps://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422180606-8172159.jpeg[/center]
       experiments on animals (and people, when they can get away with
       it) for the "good" of humanity, to the rampant profit over
       people and planet modus operandi unjustly impoverishing billions
       of people, condemning them to lives of misery, untreated disease
       and ignominious death. &#129397;
       This heinous "Apex Predators have a DARWINIAN RESPONSIBILITY to
       BE as PREDATORILY EVOLVED (SEE: Steal everything that is not
       nailed down.) as possible" ATHEIST WORLDVIEW is the socially
       destructive tsunami now engulfing human society. What all the
       entrenched insiders among the parasitic, predatory (i.e. Social
       Darwinist) elites and institutions don't dare admit publicly,
       though they celebrate that privately, is that to protect
       themselves from consequence, making the rest of us sacrifice
       everything else is what they-the-Apex-Predators have a DARWINIAN
       DUTY to DO. After all, Homo sapiens is "just the result of
       random undirected processes", so the more you can "enlightened
       self interest" DO to get MORE POWER by causing, directly or
       indirectly, the death of human competitors for the species gene
       pool high ground, "the better".
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-101222220934.png[/center]
       This is how America works now: in-your-face corruption is not
       just accepted, it's glorified.
       Let's score America's wealth and power elites, regardless of
       party or political persuasion:
       Integrity: zero.
       Austerity: zero.
       Restraint: zero.
       Humility: zero.
       Responsibility: zero.
       Accountability: zero.
       Sacrifice for the common good: zero.
       Thrift: zero.
       ALL the above scores are perfectly descriptive of the Social
       Darwinist modus operandi/vivendi.
       Frugality and prudence, once accepted by all human cultures as
       sine qua non, has given way to massive excess by TPTB (and too
       many of the, brainwashed by the "education system", non-rich
       populace) and a level of craziness in culture ethical humans
       never imagined they would experience.
       A society whose elites, BECAUSE of their TOTAL embrace of the
       morally bankrupt SOCIAL DARWINIST IDEOLOGY, are so self-serving,
       corrupt, unaccountable and devoid of any sense of good and evil
       is doomed. It REALLY IS the Social Darwinism, stupid!
       Whenever a Darwinist "Scientist" starts telling you how
       "ignorant" you are of the "science" of evolution by
       condescendingly pointing out your "lack" of academic
       credentials, followed by questioning your ability to reason and,
       when that don't work, questioning your intelligence, remember
       this wise old saying:
       Never buy something when the seller tells you that you are too
       dumb to understand the product.
       Until ethics based people in general, and those on the LEFT in
       particular, face the fact that Darwin's, disguised as "science",
       atheist ideology needs to be completely eliminated from all
       textbooks in absolutely every field of human endeavor, from
       Biology to Medicine to Social Science to Economics, and so on,
       taught in our schools, from pre-school (yes, it is THERE RIGHT
       NOW TOO! The brainwashing starts EARLY.) to advanced university
       degrees, things will get worse.
       --- Quote ---
       > “Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can
       be changed until it is faced.” James Baldwin &#10024;
       --- End Quote ---
       --- Quote ---
       > "Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall
       be to them that devise good." -- Proverbs 14:22
       --- End Quote ---
       [center]
  HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-010422145028.jpeg[/center]
       *****************************************************
       Page 4 of 11
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page