RunRyder RC
WATCH
 98 pages [ <<    <     16      17     ( 18 )     19      20     NEXT    >> ] 51906 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Understanding Evolution
08-26-2013 08:52 PM  5 years agoPost 341
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There is no scientific debate Tom, its been over for a long long time.
Yea I know you ae a legend in your own mind out I just gave you scientific argument for your chromosome vid and you refuse to even consider it due to you settled closed mind

When you evolve a mind that can reason beyond your on selfishness give me a call but until then -----

Game over dude !

Hoggy I guess you tried but I would like to hear your response to the article I posted about your vid. It states in the end That we don't know for sure the total how and why of why we exist which is the proper conclusion to this discussion . I have tried to be open minded and listen to a reasonable discussion on this matter but it just won't happen here. Helimatt has presented many good arguments that have not been replyed to in the spirit that the were given. One could hope for better but it won't happen here good day sir

P.s. out give me an address and I will send you a whole box of tissues for the days you just can't help yourself

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-26-2013 09:12 PM  5 years agoPost 342
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Ken Miller is a professor and a theist, and is well respected.

You posted a biased professors helper, from a biased apologetic website. Who is unknown but is a creationist.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-26-2013 09:47 PM  5 years agoPost 343
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Alongside this, are observed instances of the separation of populations of species into sets of new species (speciation). Speciation has been observed directly and indirectly in the lab and in nature.

Who the hell do you think you are! to discredit real knowledge and real education?

You cannot explain this, can you.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-26-2013 10:28 PM  5 years agoPost 344
xcellgasman101

rrElite Veteran

WOODWARD, OKLA....

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You know,, I have been following this thread for sometime now, Don't really know why and all I can say is, Outhouse, you have the closet name to what you are, then anyone else here at RR, You named yourself correctly, Why?? cause your full of crap, PERIOD!! I am a christan, I belive in Christ, I don't push my religon on anyone, if you belive, you belive, if you don't you don't,

I would also like to add, that I belive in Evolution, Why,, Cause it's God's design!! We adapt to our surrounding, Just like everthing in nature, Well good luck to you in life, and HOPEFULLY you evolve into something more that a turd But it sounds like it takes Billions of years to do so, Good Luck, and so long, XGM/VGM

John Crotts
www.soonerhelicamproductions.com

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-26-2013 10:43 PM  5 years agoPost 345
Hoggy42

rrNovice

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Tom I will when I get the free time respond to Matt and yourself. in my last post I said it would be a couple of days. I have a business to run and a family including a sick baby who come before you guys and this forum at this time. I normally only have a small window of time late at night to get on here. I'm eating breakfast at the moment and don't have time.

However in regards to your post from Will Brooks. He has very simply written to suit what Ken Miller said. Which is either evolution happened. Or a creator made things to make it look like it had. Doesn't change that facts and you need to ignore a lot of evidence to go that way.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-26-2013 10:47 PM  5 years agoPost 346
tripergreenfeet

rrApprentice

SA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

That we don't know for sure the total how and why of why we exist which is the proper conclusion to this discussion
The how and why are totally irrelevant to Understanding Evolution. Evolution does not care about the hows and whys, it unfolds unconsciously.

The how could be included if you're looking at just one narrow passage of evolution, e.g. the homo genus itself. But that is still deviating from the how of evolution. The narcistic belief of the homo knows no bounds.

The why, that's a philosophical question which has no place when discussing the terms of evolution. The why is also narcissism predominately obsessed over by the religious.

Taking a scientific angle on the evolution of the homo genus, that ends with Homo Sapiens, pure, random chance is what got us here. No grand plan, no grand controller...it's the narcissism of Homo Sapiens that come to conclusions of grandeur, of entitlement. And the best way to do that is to spread propaganda of being the "chosen ones", again, narcissism.

As I said above, evolution has no consciousness, no delusions of grandeur, just the wheel of change eternally rolling along. For one thing is constant in the universe, and that is change.

Logo 550SX, Uvular Logo 600SE, TT E820

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-26-2013 11:12 PM  5 years agoPost 347
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I would also like to add, that I belive in Evolution
Then I normally wouldn't have a problem with you. Or your theism.
Outhouse, you have the closet name to what you are, then anyone else here at RR, You named yourself correctly, Why??
Its a old gaming tag, but it really means I can take all your crap and there is room for more.

Carry on heli brother

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-26-2013 11:18 PM  5 years agoPost 348
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What is in error?

Besides making Genesis look like a children's fable

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 12:31 AM  5 years agoPost 349
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Taking a scientific angle on the evolution of the homo genus, that ends with Homo Sapiens, pure, random chance is what got us here
Trip do you also Believe your abillity to have conscious thought was a random event as well? So everything you do,think and say is just a random event! Just curious

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 12:34 AM  5 years agoPost 350
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Doesn't change that facts and you need to ignore a lot of evidence to go that way.
The start of this post I could agree with on ostpoins but to this end I do disagree with you

Talk later hope the baby gets better soon. I don't miss those days for sure.

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 12:47 AM  5 years agoPost 351
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hoggy and trip please read this as it concerns your expressed thoughts. Out you need not rapesond to this but if the need befalls you don't forget to wipe your mouth.

"Evolution is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!”

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

“Everybody’s doin’ it. So, you should, too,” the little boy’s classmate says. After giving in and engaging in the inappropriate behavior and getting caught, what does the little boy’s mother say? “If everybody jumps off a cliff, are you going to jump with them?” We’ve all likely heard sound reasoning like that from an authority, and yet the truth of such logic must not have “sunk in” with many in the evolutionary community.

Recently, we received an e-mail at Apologetics Press responding to an article we posted a few weeks back titled, “Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science Guy” (Miller, 2012a). The gentleman’s comments were not atypical of many of the comments we receive from the evolutionary community, but one line of reasoning, in particular, is representative of the mindset of many. Thus, we felt it was worth a formal, public response. The argument this individual based his contention on was that the scientific consensus on a subject—whatever it may be—should be ultimately accepted (i.e., considered as “gospel”), and any further scientific investigation and/or discovery should be viewed in light of the veracity of the scientific consensus on that subject. Specifically, he applied the concept to the idea that belief in Darwinian evolution is the scientific consensus today and therefore, should be accepted—not resisted, as we do at Apologetics Press. This gentleman is hardly the only one who espouses such a view. So, it is worthy of consideration to see if it holds up under scrutiny.

Perhaps the first objection one should have to such a mindset is that it falls into the category of logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populum—appeal to the majority (Archie, 2012). The variation of this fallacy known as “Bandwagon,” is the idea in which someone attempts to “prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true” (Archie). In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like macroevolution), that does not make it true—and the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition. Just because bloodletting was “the most common procedure performed by surgeons for almost two thousand years,” that should not have made it an acceptable idea, though it carried the weight of consensus behind it (“Bloodletting,” 2012). Just because the consensus in medicine in the recent past, before the discovery of germs, was not to worry about cleanliness in operating rooms, that does not mean that such entrenched practices should not be questioned. Just because the consensus over millennia was that life could arise spontaneously from non-life (Balme, 1962)—a belief held even as late as 300 years ago when Francesco Redi conducted his experiments that began casting doubt on that idea—that does not mean that such a preposterous idea should have continued to exist. Just because the “consensus” in certain evolutionary circles only 100 years ago was that certain races should be considered inferior in the evolutionary chain (cf. Darwin, 1859; Stein and Miller, 2008), did that mean that everyone should have accepted the “consensus” and taken part in eliminating those deemed “weaker” or “less fit” by evolutionists?

“Majority rule” is hardly a suitable mindset for scientific investigation. Scientific breakthroughs are not made by the majority—but rather, by innovative individuals thinking outside the box, not thinking in the same way the majority thinks. In fact, the “consensus” view is often times the very viewpoint that is wrong because of the “herd mentality” humanity tends to have—the same mentality that Moses warned against in Exodus 23:2. Just because there is a consensus in this country among the rank and file Americans that evolution is false (cf. Miller, 2012b), that should not be taken as evidence for or against evolution—whether or not the population is deemed “scientific” enough in the minds of the science community’s self-promoting “credentials police.” There exists an overwhelming consensus (84%) in the world that some kind of god(s) exists (cf. “Major Religions of the World…,” 2007), and yet one can be assured that the atheistic evolutionary community would not want to appeal to the “consensus” argument in that case. Consider further: even if it is now the scientific consensus among the biology community that Darwinian evolution is true, what about before evolution had become consensus in that field? Should the “consensus rule” have been applied then, disallowing the spread of evolutionary theory? If so, then the biology community is in error for breaking their own rules and needs to go back to the old viewpoint in order to be consistent.

In truth, accepting the consensus view on a theory is a dangerous practice. Scientific theories are not “bad guys.” Theories are important in order to make scientific progress. However, a theory (like the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory), by its very definition, is not known as absolute, but rather, as a possible explanation of something. A theory tacitly acknowledges the potential that it may be incorrect and that there may be other theories that fit the facts better, that will one day be proven as legitimate. This makes accepting the consensus view on a scientific theory a dangerous practice, since the theory may be wrong. A scientific law, however, is not based on “consensus” or speculation, but on the evidence—the facts. Therefore, there should be “consensus” about the laws of nature, even if there isn’t. However, what makes them valid should not be, and is not, based on “consensus.” The goal of science should be the pursuit of truth—not consensus; truth—not what’s popular. That is what has and will lead to further scientific progress in this country and in the world.

The consensus in this country that has existed since its inception—that Creation is true and Darwinian evolution is false—has no doubt played a role in the scientific breakthroughs that individual scientists have made that have led to our nation’s success. Such breakthroughs are to be expected according to the biblical model. In this area, it is clear that following the “consensus” has been a good thing. It seems evident, based on God’s dealings with nations in the Bible, that He views the spiritual state of a nation by its consensus views on various matters, and He responds accordingly with blessings or punishments. In the past, God has showered this nation with blessings—scientifically, economically, militarily, and in many other ways—in large part due to the “consensus” of Americans that the God of the Bible is the one true God (cf. Miller, 2008). Sadly, the consensus is changing, and we should expect God’s blessings to diminish accordingly. May we encourage you always in your pursuit to boldly speak “the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), doing your part to make the American consensus one that believes in and seeks to obey the one true God of the Universe.

REFERENCES

Archie, John (2012), “Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Argumentum Ad Populum,” Introduction to Logic, Lander University, http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html.

Balme, D.M. (1962), “Development of Biology in Aristotle and Theophrastus: Theory of Spontaneous Generation,” Phronesis: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy, 7[1-2]:91-104.

“Bloodletting” (2012), Science Museum Brought to Life: Exploring the History of Medicine, http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/bro...odletting.aspx.

Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray).

“Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents” (2007), http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.

Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science Guy,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APC...9&article=2842.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls,” Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:94-95, September (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org /A...&article=2040#.

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

Copyright © 2012 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 12:55 AM  5 years agoPost 352
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Tom do you think ignorantly posting biased creationist website trash refutes the facts we have shown here?

Jeff Miller is known creationist trash.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 01:29 AM  5 years agoPost 353
JasonJ

rrKey Veteran

North Idaho

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What it boils down to is this: Science is flawed and is always searching for facts. Sometimes it gets it right, sometimes it doesn't but when it is right it is right because there was actual physical evidence to test and verify through repetition. Religion is not based on anything physical, there is no tactile proof of anything. It is all faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, it just cannot be used as proof of anything. Everytime I see these debates it's always the same. Science presents data, religion presents nothing but faith. If we are really being honest the religious side of the argument functions at about a 6th grade level. They may as well be saying "I know you are but what am I" or "I'm rubber, your glue...." you get my point. Me, I am not an all knowing being but I am smart enough to know that I don't know if there is a God or if everything is random evolution. I am not so arrogant to actually have the balls to tell other people they are wrong with zero proof. Yes, evolutionists can be just as fervent as the devout but at least there is data, there is evidence to weigh. With religion, it is pure faith. Again, it is fine to have faith but that does not endow you with anything more than you own personal journey. It is not the faith that bothers me, it is the arrogance of thinking you are privy to some all powerful something that makes you think you are better. That it the very core of it and I see it in this thread. The religious gang up on the few non religious and behave so outside the teachings of Christ that you are embarrasments to your faith. Shame on you. No one I know who are of faith behaves like this. No one of true faith following the teachings of Christ behave like rabid pack animals. Shame on you, your God is watching you.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 01:31 AM  5 years agoPost 354
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here is another tidbit

In this month’s Reason & Revelation, Dr. Houts explains that for several decades now, evolutionists have been using various worn out, disproven lines of reasoning in an attempt to bolster their increasingly fragile theory of common descent for all organisms. One of these outmoded tactics is the idea that the human body contains leftover, virtually useless vestiges that once, in our early ancestors, were vibrant organs necessary for survival. In fact, in the late 1800s, evolutionary scientists believed that the human body supported more than 180 such organs.

These “useless” vestiges of evolution, however, turned out to be nothing of the sort. Dr. Houts noted that these organs were “useless” only in the sense that scientists and medical doctors were ignorant of their functions. As the medical community applied more research to the human body, the list quickly dwindled to a tiny fraction of the original number. Today, there is not a single organ that scientists can accurately and confidently proclaim to be a useless vestige of evolution. This realization, however, has not yet trickled down to the popularizers of evolution.

Live Science posts several “Top 10” articles that give the alleged Top 10 items in a given category. For example, there is a list of the “Top 10 Killer Tornadoes” and another of the “Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth.” One of their lists is titled, “Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)” (Miller, 2007). Listed as number one in that article is the human appendix. Concerning the appendix, Miller wrote: “Biologists believe it is a vestigial organ left behind from a plant-eating ancestor” (2007). He then reiterated ideas that Alfred Romer penned in 1949, stating “that the major importance of the appendix would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession, referring to, of course, the large number of appendectomies performed annually” (2007).

As one would expect if God designed the human body, aspects of the body would exist that our finite human minds could assess only after years of intense research. Such is the case with the appendix. Elsewhere in this issue of R&R, Dr. Houts notes several functions and uses already known for the appendix. A recent article published in Theoretical Biology, however, adds another interesting function to the appendix’s increasing workload. Researchers from Duke University believe they have stumbled upon another reason humans have an appendix, and it is not because it is an evolutionary leftover (Borenstein, 2007).

Human digestion requires huge amounts of beneficial bacteria. Certain illnesses, however, destroy or remove both good and bad bacteria from the intestines. In order for digestion to continue, cultures of the good bacteria must be regrown to repopulate the gut. That is where the appendix comes in according to the latest research. Borenstein noted: “Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix’s job is to reboot the digestive system in that case” (2007). Bill Parker, co-author of the latest research, said that the appendix “acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs” (Borenstein, 2007).

Evolutionists should simply admit that the idea of vestigial organs is false, they should promptly remove it from their arsenals, and reevaluate the data that supposedly prove evolution true. But that is not what happens. Because evolution is so “plastic” and can be expanded to fit any data, even data that is exactly the opposite of what has been used in the past to teach evolution is twisted as new “proof” of evolution. Borenstein quoted Brandies University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald as saying that the explanation for the function of the appendix “seems by far the most likely” and that the idea “makes evolutionary sense” (2007). So, we are told that the appendix is a useless leftover, and that “fact” proves evolution to be true. Then we are told that the appendix has a very important function and that fact “makes evolutionary sense.” Which is it? In truth, that which proves too much proves nothing. Finding an important function for the appendix is exactly what one would expect if the human body was designed by God.

As for other organs in the human body that have been dubbed vestigial in the past, those who use the vestigial argument should proceed with extreme caution. Borenstein wrote: “The theory led Gary Huffnagle, a University of Michigan internal medicine and microbiology professor, to wonder about the value of another body part that is often yanked: ‘I’ll bet eventually we’ll find the same sort of thing with the tonsils’” (several functions of which already are known, see Bergman, 2000). The only thing that appears to be useless in this discussion is the theory of evolution and the false evidence used to support it.

REFERENCES

Bergman, Jerry (2000), “Do Any Vestigial Organs Exist in Humans?” Technical Journal, [On-Line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/.../vestigial.asp.

Borenstein, Seth (2007), “Scientists: Appendix Protects Good Germs,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071006...endix_s_purpose;_ ylt=Ak5.0FtXAiVHNNcRPfiNLsus0NUE.

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 01:45 AM  5 years agoPost 355
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The religious gang up on the few non religious and behave so outside the teachings of Christ that you are embarrasments to your faith. Shame on you. No one I know who are of faith behaves like this. No one of true faith following the teachings of Christ behave like rabid pack animals. Shame on you, your God is watching you.
Gang up? On who? Really ? I beg to differ sir. Helimatt has presented known scientific arguments aginst the post presented here and has been shown nothing but disrespect from the sart. I as well have presented simular arguments and the response is I have no right to question science at all,really get real.
I have the right to question everything and I do . I can't say the same for others here.

As far as proof for creation ,it is in front of you but some choose to ignore it. It's kinda like you can't see the forest for the trees

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 02:12 AM  5 years agoPost 356
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What is in error?
This possiably

Ardi Joins a Long, Infamous List of Losers

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

If it were not so serious, the situation would be comical. Every few months a media blitz raves about a new “half-and-half” creature that is unlike anything ever seen. Supposedly, tiny features about this novel beast give modern humans cutting-edge insights into how primate ancestors evolved into us. The incisors are larger or smaller than most apes, the cranium has a bigger (or smaller) capacity, the tiny toe bone fragments offer amazing information about how the creature walked on all fours most of the time, except when it was being chased by a specific kind of predator on Tuesdays in the Fall, the small scraps of finger bones tell us that the creature swung from branches for the majority of its life, except for brief periods of time when it descended to the ground to walk upright for elaborate mating rituals that occurred once every 10 years during the Summer equinox, etc. And we know all this from bone fragments that are supposedly millions of years old.

The troubling thing about this whole scenario is that no matter how many times creationists prove it to be false, and no matter how many times specific “creatures” like Piltdown Man, Lucy, or Ida are discredited, people continue to be shaken in their belief in the Bible by every “latest” find. With each new creature, frantic readers contact their favorite Christian apologists and demand that this new find must be answered within two days, or the Genesis account of creation is going to be jeopardized and its validity seriously compromised. It is as if the history of the numerous evolutionary foibles is forgotten by the masses every time the media adopts another evolutionary poster child.

The remedy to this is simple. Let us all stop, take a deep breath, and systematically go through a few of the reasons why the “latest find” is nothing more or less than all the other evolutionary “breakthroughs” that have gone before it. First, the entire concept of any life arising from non-living chemicals through random, evolutionary processes has been proven to be scientifically impossible (Thompson, 1989). Every legitimate experiment that has been done for the entirety of human history that has any bearing on the subject has shown that in the natural Universe, life comes only from previously existing life of its own kind. No research team has ever found an evolutionary link between humans and lower animals for the simple, yet profound reason, that evolution is impossible and humans could not evolve from lower life forms. Furthermore, specific human traits, such as consciousness, sexual reproduction, varying blood types, spoken language, and the complexity of the human brain, pose insurmountable barriers to the false theory of human evolution (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003).

Second, the dating methods that are used to render “accurate” dates of millions of years are fraught with irreconcilable difficulties that prove them to be useless (see DeYoung, 2005; Snelling, n.d.; Morris, 1994). In truth, the evolutionary community concocts whatever dates it wants, jettisons any that do not match its preconceived notions, and massages dates arbitrarily. Numerous fossil finds have supposedly added hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary time, even though the rejected time frame was “known” to be accurate (see Butt, 2005; Butt, 2006; Butt, 2008a). When an article begins with a statement like, “4.4 million years ago...,” it might as well be saying, “Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away....” Accurate dating methods that render dates in the millions do not exist.

Third, how many alleged human ancestors must be debunked before the world views these false evolutionary claims with appropriate incredulity. Chapters one and two of the Apologetics Press book The Truth About Human Origins deals definitively with Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis, Dryopithicus africanus, Ramapithesu brevirostris, Orrorin tugenensis, Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithicus anamensis, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, Kenyanthropus platyops, Lucy, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Rhodesian Man (2003). In addition, Hobbit Man has been debunked (see Harrub, 2004; Harrub, 2005) and “Lucy’s Baby” is no longer viable (see Harrub, 2006).

In more recent news, a lemur fossil named Ida was hailed as not just “a discovery of great significance” (“The Link,” 2009), but the “most significant scientific discovery of recent times” (Leonard, 2009, emp. added). Some scientists claimed that it would “finally confirm irrefutably Sir Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Leonard, emp. added). Dr. Jens Lorenz Franzen of Senckenberg Research Institute in Germany referred to it as “the eighth wonder of the world” (as quoted in Scally, 2009), and confidently proclaimed: “When our results are published, it will be just like an asteroid hitting the Earth” (“The Link”). Google was so enamored with the find that on May 20, 2009 the search engine mogul incorporated an illustration of the animal into its logo. So what was all the hoopla about? “Our earliest ancestor,” of course (“The Link”). At least, that is what some evolutionists and their friends in the media were telling everyone, until these claims were reduced to ashes by opponents within the evolutionary camp (see Lyons and Butt, 2009; Lyons, 2009b; Butt, 2009).

Enter the most recent newcomer to the long list of evolutionary losers—Ardi. Just five months after Ida—“the most significant scientific discovery of recent times, the eighth wonder of the world, our earliest ancestor”—we are introduced to Ardi—“the closest we have ever come” to the common ancestor we allegedly share with chimps (see Schmid, 2009). Ardi supposedly takes human evolution back to 4.4 million years ago. It is hyped as so significant that the journal Science contains 11 papers on it in the October, 2009 edition. David Pilbeam boldly stated: “This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution” (as quoted in Schmid, 2009, emp. added). Sounds remarkably like the announcement of Ida. Sample said “experts have described the find as the most important regarding human evolution in the past century” (2009). Amazing how quickly the “eighth wonder of the world” was replaced by Ardi.

One of the ironies surrounding Ardi’s heralded success is that if the evolutionary community was right in 2001, then our newest Ardi is much less significant than an earlier Ardi. You see, in the July 23, 2001 issue of Time, staff writers Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorman introduced their readers to Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. Supposedly, “Ardi” kadabba lived between 5.2 and 5.8 million years ago, more than a million years before the current reigning media champion. Furthermore, kadabba allegedly evolved “very close to the time when humans and chimps first went their separate ways” (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 29-33). In addition, kadabba “almost certainly walked upright” according to the evolutionists who wrote about the find. We still have the bones of kadabba that were displayed in Time. So why are we not still hearing about this unprecedented evolutionary victory? For the simple reason that it is not the “Johnny-come-lately” that can generate media hype.

The latest reports of the 4.4 million-year-old Ardi are standard, run-of-the-mill, evolutionary propaganda that lack scientific integrity and, more basically, a foundation of truth. Already, we are being treated to “qualifying” statements such as, “it may take years to confirm exactly where Ardi fits in the history of human evolution” (Sample, 2009). Yale paleontologist Andrew Hill said: “We thought Lucy was the find of the century but, in retrospect, it isn’t” (as quoted in Sample). Would that we could fast-forward a few years (or a few weeks as in Ida’s case) and see what discrediting remarks Ardi will elicit “in retrospect.” In addition, the stories being spun are already contradictory. For instance, Schmid says that Ardi’s anatomy shows that “the development of their arms and legs indicates that they didn’t spend much time in the trees” (2009, emp. added). While, on the other hand, Sample stated: “Though Ardi would have spent much of her time in the trees, her pelvis was adapted to walking upright...” (2009, emp. added).

In other places, we have documented admissions from evolutionists, showing examples of the fabrication and exaggeration so prevalent in the field of evolutionary paleontology (see Butt, 2008b; Lyons, 2009a). And a close look at paleontological efforts to find “human ancestors” offers some keen insight into why we are treated to a new “relative” every few months. After all, Ardi was discovered in 1992. Following the original find, “a total of 47 researchers then spent a further 15 years removing, preparing and studying each of the fragments” (Sample, 2009). Somehow the paleontological world must justify spending 705 man-years of research on Ardi. So instead of calling it what it truly is, an ape, they are forced to justify their prodigal, vain years of research by claiming that they have stumbled upon the latest, greatest “wonder of the world.” Oh, that thinking people would have the wisdom to view Ardi, and all similar outlandish evolutionary claims, in light of real scientific facts. How many Lucys, Hobbits, Piltdowns, Nebraskas, and Idas will it take for people to see what is happening here? Add Ardi to the ever-growing heap of dead-ends piled high in the mass grave of alleged human evolution.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2005), “Reconsideration of Many Long-standing Assumptions,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2769.

Butt, Kyle (2006), “One Little Beaver Demolishes a Hundred Million Years,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2878.

Butt, Kyle (2008a), “Complex Jellies Jump 200 Million Years,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3580.

Butt, Kyle (2008b), “‘So We Make Up Stories’ About Human Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3641.

Butt, Kyle (2009), “Following Up on a Messy, and Still Missing, Link,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240171.

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Harrub, Brad (2004), “Hobbit Heresy,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2641.

Harrub, Brad (2005), “Hobbit Hubbub,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/703.

Harrub, Brad (2006), “Lucy’s Baby?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3104.

Leonard, Tom (2009), “Scientists Unveil Stunning Fossil,” Telegraph, [On-line], URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ng-fossil.html.

“The Link” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.revealingthelink.com/.

Lyons, Eric (2009a), “Confessed Conjectures and Contradictions of Paleoartists,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240213.

Lyons, Eric (2009b), “Ida, One More Time,” [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240233.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Ida—A Missing Link?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240160.

Morris, John D. (1994), The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Sample, Ian (2009), “Fossil Ardi Reveals the First Steps of the Human Race,” The Guardian, [On-line], URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...rdi-human-race.

Scally, Derek (2009), “Fossil Ida a Crucial Finding for the Understanding of Early Human Evolution,” Irish Times, May 21, [On-line], URL: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper...247034331.html.

Schmid, Randolf (2009), “Before Lucy Came Ardi, New Earliest Hominid Found,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001...ci_before_lucy.

Snelling, Andrew (no date), “The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating of Rocks: Basalt Lava Flows in Grand Canyon,” [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/art...oactive-dating.

Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004.

Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 02:23 AM  5 years agoPost 357
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Helimatt has presented known scientific arguments
No he did not.

He posted creationist lies and was caught lying himself.

Tom posting apologetic lies from a creationist website will do you no good at all.

Why is there no argument outside religious websites AT ALL?

Why is creation outlawed from public schools, and evolution taught worldwide in every university around the world as higher education?

If you cannot answer those, why should we even read your creationist trash?

You cannot even prove your deity exist at all, let alone attribute anything to the mythology.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 02:42 AM  5 years agoPost 358
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The latest reports of the 4.4 million-year-old Ardi are standard, run-of-the-mill, evolutionary propaganda that lack scientific integrity and, more basically, a foundation of truth.
This creationist trash states a worldwide conspiracy of all science departments are against those innocent Christians.

Who is behind this evolutionary propaganda?

Who exactly lacks scientific integrity?

Who is the real liar here? Is it the Smithsonian? The encyclopedia? Or UC Berkley a very credible university there Tom?

Or is some biased religious website Tom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardi

Ardi (ARA-VP-6/500) is the designation of the fossilized skeletal remains of an Ardipithecus ramidus, an early human-like species 4.4 million years old. It is the most complete early hominid specimen, with most of the skull, teeth, pelvis, hands and feet,[1] more complete than the previously known Australopithecus afarensis specimen called "Lucy." In all, 110 different pieces of fossilized bone were found. Ardi weighed about 110 pounds and could be up to 4 feet tall. Although she is a biped, Ardi had both opposable big toes and thumbs in order to climb trees.

Although it is not known whether Ardi's species developed into Homo sapiens, the discovery is of great significance and added much to the debate on Ardipithecus and its place in human evolution. Ardi cannot be a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.

Chimpanzee are specialised for grasping trees. Ardi's feet are better suited for walking because the middle of the foot is more stable, while a chimpanzee's foot is more flexible.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence...ithecus-ramidus

Ardipithecus ramidus was first reported in 1994; in 2009, scientists announced a partial skeleton, nicknamed ‘Ardi’. The foot bones in this skeleton indicate a divergent large toe combined with a rigid foot – it's still unclear what this means concerning bipedal behavior. The pelvis, reconstructed from a crushed specimen, is said to show adaptations that combine tree-climbing and bipedal activity. The discoverers argue that the ‘Ardi’ skeleton reflects a human-African ape common ancestor that was not chimpanzee-like

https://middleawash.berkeley.edu/mi...il_hominids.php

The Middle Awash research project has recovered the remains of fossil hominids spanning the last six million years. From oldest to youngest ("Ma" means millions of years) these are:

• 5.2-5.8 Ma. Ardipithecus kadabba is one of the earliest known hominids, from the Late Miocene. It was first announced in 2001, and further remains were announced in 2004.

• 4.4 Ma. Ardipithecus ramidus was first recognized as a new genus and species from the Middle Awash in 1994 and 1995.

• 4.1 Ma. The species Australopithecus anamensis is widely considered to be the ancestor of Au. afarensis. It has been found in the Middle Awash study area at upper Aramis and at Asa Issie, announced in 2006.

• 3.4 Ma. Australopithecus afarensis (the "Lucy" species), was named for the Afar region and people in 1978, three years before the Middle Awash project was initiated. Discoveries of this species made in the Middle Awash at Maka were announced in 1981 and 1993.

• 2.5 Ma. Australopithecus garhi is another species first recognized in the Middle Awash and found in sediments containing the first evidence for butchery of large mammals with stone tools. It was announced in 1999.

• 1.0 Ma. Homo erectus is a species known from across the Old World. Remains of this handaxe-maker were found at Bouri in the Middle Awash and announced in 2002.

• 0.16 Ma (160,000 years). The solidly dated and anatomically distinctive evidence of Homo sapiens was recovered from the Herto Bouri area and first announced as a subspecies "idaltu" in 2003.

.
.
.
.
Why would UC Berkley lie Tom, or are you posting lies?

creation is outlawed from public schools Tom, yet evolution is taught worldwide as higher education in every university everywhere!

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 03:00 AM  5 years agoPost 359
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Is this creationist scum so desperate as to ignore all the facts that show Ardi is not a ape?
Somehow the paleontological world must justify spending 705 man-years of research on Ardi. So instead of calling it what it truly is, an ape,
Tom your posting lies.

They claim the whole paleontological world is wrong, yet they wont post the real truth in the real scientist findings.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/...iskeleton.shtml

The female skeleton, nicknamed Ardi, is 4.4 million years old, 1.2 million years older than the skeleton of Lucy, or Australopithecus afarensis, the most famous and, until now, the earliest hominid skeleton ever found. Hominids are all fossil species closer to modern humans than to chimps and bonobos, which are our closest living relatives.

"This is the oldest hominid skeleton on Earth," said Tim White, University of California, Berkeley, professor of integrative biology and one of the co-directors of the Middle Awash Project, a team of 70 scientists that reconstructed the skeleton and other fossils found with it. "This is the most detailed snapshot we have of one of the earliest hominids and of what Africa was like 4.4 million years ago."

So Tom, either your a liar posting creationist trash, Or the 70 scientist associated with a prestigious university, UC Berkley and its professors are liars trying to pull the wool over unsuspecting students.

Sorry if we don't listen to your lies anymore.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 03:06 AM  5 years agoPost 360
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

We openly grant that the accusation represented by the title of this article is true, at least for many individuals today. But not for all.

“BLIND FAITH”—MANY HAVE IT

What is “blind faith”? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind “blind faith” is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop is—whether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps off—that he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless “faith.” So, he takes a “leap of faith.” Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is naïve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.

Sadly many people have such a “faith.” Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a “blind faith” which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon “fideism” (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the biblical portrait of faith (Greek, pistis—translated equally as faith, belief, trust, or having confidence in; Arndt, et al., 1979, pp. 661-664) is not what some in Christendom have defined it to be nor what Hollywood has portrayed it to be. It is not “believing when common sense tells you not to,” as the 1947 movie, Miracle on 34th Street suggested (Seaton). It is not a “leap of faith” like Dr. Jones’ actions in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg, 1989). The Bible does not advocate a “Feel, don’t think” mentality, like that encouraged by Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars (Lucas, 1999). Biblical faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). It is trust—comparable to the trust one has in a parent or friend—that is based on proof. We trust someone when he has proven himself to be trustworthy. When one listens to or reads revelation from God’s Word (i.e., what Bible believers call “special revelation”) and the information therein proves to be true, one develops faith in God (Romans 10:17). When one examines the evidence from the created order (i.e., what Bible believers call “general revelation”), and it points to the existence of a supernatural Being as Creator—rather than blind, random, accidental change over time—we learn to trust God based on that evidence.

In short: The biblical model of faith requires evidence. According to the biblical model, the truth of God can be known—not felt or accepted without proof—and it will set men free (John 8:32). Sincere truth seekers examine what they have been told and investigate its veracity by pondering the evidence, as did the “fair-minded” Bereans of Acts 17:11, before becoming Christians. In fact, God (through Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21) tells the creationist that he is expected to prove or test something before believing it—only accepting what has been proven right or good. Do such passages give the impression that the Bible advocates a blind, evidence-less faith?

Sadly, evidence-based faith is not the faith of many within Christendom. But “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Many of us base our view squarely on the evidence—such as the evidence presented below. [NOTE: See Miller, 2003a for more on the topic of “blind faith” and the Bible. Also, Miller, 2003b.]

BUT WE DON’T

In order for a belief to not be “blind” or irrational, it needs supporting evidence. While the creationist does not claim to hold direct, observable evidence of God, since we cannot taste, touch, see, hear, or smell Him, the indirect evidence—a legitimate source of scientific evidence—is overwhelming. What supporting evidence do creationists put forth? A thorough treatment of this subject is outside the scope of this article, but hundreds of articles and books deal eloquently and credibly with the subject. [NOTE: See http://www.apologeticpress.org for a library of said material.]

In short, the creationist argues, among other things, that:

The available evidence contradicts the atheistic model (cf. Miller, 2012b; Miller, 2013c), which logically leaves theism—the Creation model;
The fundamental evidence that contradicts the naturalistic model, supports the contentions of the creation model, which never contradicts the scientific evidence;
The existence and teachings of the laws of science demand a non-material, uncaused Cause for the Universe;
There are numerous natural evidences in the Universe that exhibit the characteristics of intent, purpose, and complexity, which indicate a Mind behind them. Such attributes testify to the presence of intelligent design, which implies a Designer;
Objective morality exists, which implies a higher Law that transcends mankind, which in turn demands a supernatural Author;
A Book exists that contains certain characteristics that can only be explainable if it is what it says it is—the Word of the Creator.
These proofs, and many others, provide evidence that demands an explanation and cannot be satiated by naturalistic theories. Only supernatural Creation provides an answer in keeping with the evidence. The Creation model can hardly be deemed unscientific. Its legitimate followers cannot be brushed aside as “blind” believers. Such sweeping accusations are unfair and betray a prejudiced, stereotypical mindset, to say nothing of the fact that such accusations fall victim to the ad hominem logical fallacy (“Fallacies,” 2012).

ACTUALLY, EVOLUTIONISTS DO

In truth, Creation is the reasonable choice—the one not beholden to evidence-less leaps of faith. It is not contingent on the baseless, mythical claim that aliens exist and initiated life on Earth (cf. Miller, 2013a); that abiogenesis—like magic from a fictional novel—is somehow possible (cf. Miller, 2012b); that non-humans give birth to humans, as they do in the tabloids (cf. Flew and Warren, 1977, pp. 25,45,65); or the fanciful idea that Universes spontaneously pop into existence (cf. Miller, 2013c). Indeed, atheistic evolution is simply well-packaged superstition. Creation is the option in keeping with reason and the evidence.

While some who call themselves “Christians,” do, indeed, have an unscriptural, blind faith, in truth, the same can be said of the evolutionary community—and more so. Why? (1) Because unlike evolution, the evidence does not contradict Creation but supports it, even though some have accepted Creation without that evidence; (2) because not all creationists hold to a blind faith. Some examine the evidence and draw the reasonable conclusion that a Creator exists. However, all naturalists must have a blind, evidence-less faith, since atheistic evolution is based on certain baseless, unprovable assumptions, including abiogenesis, naturalism, spontaneous generation or the eternality of matter, etc. (cf. Miller, 2013b and Kerkut, 1960 for other key, baseless evolutionary assumptions). Belief in those assumptions is purely blind. They (1) are not supported by the evidence, which classifies evolution as irrational; (2) actually contradict the evidence; and (3) even show the naturalist to be engaged in self-contradiction, which he blindly ignores when confronted with the evidence of his contradictions (cf. Miller, 2012a). It seems clear that it is the evolutionist—not the creationist—who holds to a blind faith.

Consider the following timeless quotes from various prominent evolutionists concerning the character of the naturalist’s faith:

Robert Jastrow, evolutionary astronomer and founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA: “At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists  [i.e., naturalists—JM] are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is alsoan act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. added).
John Sullivan, once a popular evolutionary science writer: “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith” (1933, p. 95, emp. added).
Richard Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist of Harvard University: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..., in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”(1997, p. 31, 2nd and 4th emp. in orig.).
G.A. Kerkut, British evolutionary physiologist: Spontaneous generation is “a matter of faith on the part of the biologist…. The evidence for what did happen is not available” (1960, p. 150, emp. added).
Loren Eiseley, evolutionary anthropologist of the University of Pennsylvania: “With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past” (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).
Robert Hazen, evolutionary geologist who received his doctoral degree in Earth Science from Harvard University, a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory, and a professor of Earth Science at George Mason University: “I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know—in fact, that we can’t ever know. It is possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments. If the origin of life was an infinitely improbable accident, then there’s absolutely nothing you or I or anyone else could do to figure out how it happened. I must tell you, that’s a depressing thought to someone like me who has devoted a decade to understanding the origin of life” (2005, emp. added).
Fred Hoyle, distinguished atheistic British astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales: “It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the ‘primeval soup theory’ of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach” (1978, p. 26, emp. added).
If these quotes from eminent evolutionists do not prove that naturalistic evolution is a religious faith, and a blind one at that, what would? It’s no wonder that the late Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, said about evolution, “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory” (1981, emp. added). These quotes simply do not characterize true Christianity or the true Creation model—but they do characterize evolution.

Thus, it seems that the rank and file evolutionist’s self-incriminating, venomous accusations towards the creationist are well-represented by the Shakespearean quote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (III.2). Be wary of the one who makes accusations the loudest and attempts to deflect attention from his own inadequacies.

Bottom line: The true model of origins will be based on the evidence. It will be the rational model. It will not contradict the evidence at every turn. So atheistic evolution is not the true model of origins.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.

Eiseley, Loren (1957), The Immense Journey (New York: Random House).

“Fallacies” (2012), The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill, http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies.

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.

Lucas, George, dir. (1999), Star Wars Episode I—The Phantom Menace, Lucasfilm.

Miller, Dave (2003a), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...11&article=444.

Miller, Dave (2003b), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation--EXTENDED VERSION,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...1&article=1399.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 32[5]:53, May, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPa...9&article=1763.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apP...8&article=1722.

Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APC...9&article=4620.

Miller, Jeff (2013b), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Reason & Revelation, 33[6]: 62-64,69-70, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apP...2&article=2153.

Miller, Jeff (2013c), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: the Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APConte...2&article=2786.

Patterson, Colin (1981), Written transcript made from audio tape of lecture presented at the American Museum of Natural History, November.

Popkin, Richard (1967), “Fideism” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: McMillan).

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Seaton, George (1947), Miracle on 34th Street, Twentieth Century Fox.

Shakespeare, William (2011), Hamlet, The Literature Network, http://www.online-literature.com/sh...are/hamlet/10/.

Spielberg, Steven, dir. (1989), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Paramount Pictures.

Sullivan, J.W.N. (1933), Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).

Copyright © 2013 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 98 pages [ <<    <     16      17     ( 18 )     19      20     NEXT    >> ] 51906 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Understanding Evolution
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 16  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, November 20 - 7:27 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online