Some Evidence Against Evolution

Quetzal: Post #189 was also meant for you as a response to your posts {#160/#183} This is the way it worked out for me.For the record I never used the word "conspiracy" nor did I imply it.However, I do understand why you say that I am claiming conspiracy.Would evangelical christians ever be fair to atheists in general ?
And would their unfairness be a conspiracy ?My point is we need to define "conspiracy" . Is it understood or is it actually organized ?Your last paragraph in post #183 is a hoot - the part about your willingness to break the code of silence is real real funny !!!

I heard him say it live from the pulpit during his message about 7 or 8 months ago.It will take me about a month or so to track down which message, when this happens I will give you the message number then you can click on the real player in his archives section and listen to it yourself.The reason it will take so long is because I will have to do some tedious searching through the teaching tapes without the help of a computer because I do not recollect which message it is in.Thank you for wanting to know. I had no idea when I used these words that they were "unknown". When Dr.Scott used them I took note because I never heard of them before but I didn't take note of the message number at the time.

I'm saying that Professor Huston Smith author of "Why Religion Matters" identified in his book that the BRANCH of science called scientism consists totally of atheists who in their starting assumptions {everyone has them - not a matter of opinion} exclude the existence of God, whats so hard to understand about this.It seems you and the solid majority of the room are not even up to snuff on the status of the arguments. Why don't you read "An Intelligent Persons Guide to Atheism" author Daniel Harbour {2001} and the other book I mentioned then come back.This entire room seems totally ignorant of the basic claims of neo-Darwinism and Creationism - just basic stuff that is 101. This I know when the average poster here parrots the standard ignorant statement of "that is an assertion....where is the evidence for that...."Daniel Harbour is an honest atheist who is up to date on the status of all the arguments. He never once says what you all say because refutation cannot take place unless each debater already is on the same page.For example: Once I said the Bible claims to be God's word, then an avalanche of ignorance came demanding that I prove that. Every atheist debater knows that is the claim as we theists know their claim is that He doesn't exist at all.I wrongly assumed that the average person here was at least knowledgeable in these 101 areas.

The purpose of this reply is to let you know I read your reply.I believe that the best preacher in the world is Dr.Gene Scott.God speaks through him, he teaches that God will not exstinguish a smoking flax. Listen to Dr.Scott and discover what God has to say to you. Maybe that lifeline is just late - God is notoriously late.

I have been taken completely out of context !!!Its a "if the shoe fits - wear it type of thing"That post/reply was meant for everyone who insinuated or outright denied that the entire reason that evolution/neo-Darwinism exists is to explain the origin of life IN PLACE of the explanations of creationism. It's like we are in the 573rd page of this debate and certain people want to suddenly say that evolution doesn't challenge the claims of creationism. What nonsense ! Then somebody brought up theistic evolution which isn't the subject. The subject is that I believe God is the Creator and the other side doesn't - ok.However you Darwinssterer are not one of these people so the post you just posted of which I am replying to was written in vain. I am convinced of your knowledge of evolution - I already told you this several times.All of the scientific evidence cited by atheistic neo-Dawrwinism is offered in the larger context that God does not exist. If anyone wants to deny this then I will ignore them for the remainder of this debate.My next post to you will be scientific evidence - a few minutes away.
Look forward to your answers, also my reply to post #81 is forth coming.

You are a moron to quickly criticize Dr.Gene ScottAs you know he has a Ph.D. from Stanford. His Ph.D. is from the university itself and not from any department which makes it the most prestigious.He is the only person in the history of Stanford to request an oral exam to get his minor in geography. This means any professor from any department could attend the exam and ask him any question. If you miss one question then you flunk. He passed.Dr.Scott's degree is a research degree. He was taught that you were not qualified to offer an opinion in any subject until you read every book ever written on the subject.His IQ is 202 and he is the only person that I know of who demands that nobody send any money to him unless it is in response to his teaching and to pay what you think it is worth. That is the criteria.
Dr.Scott is the only person in the world whose voice is heard on every square inch of the globe 24 hours a day 365 days a year all paid for by the aforementioned criteria.He lost his faith in college, but as a kid he once saw his father get up off a death bed when he was dying of rheumatic fever. With the memory of this miracle in the back of his brain he decided he had to settle the issue : Did Jesus rise from the dead or not ? For the next three and a half years he read every book on the subject ever written when at the end of that three and a half years he layed down the last book and concluded from the evidence that Jesus rose.You are a coward sitting in the comfort of anonymous land insulting a great person like Dr.Scott. You aint even qualified to lick up his spit off the ground. How typical of your kind to insult someone just because they are not of your persuasion.Comfort yourself with your standard of rational enquiry, Dr.Scott's standard is to read every book ever written on a subject THEN open ones mouth.For some reason this logidemic thing has you obviously jealous, why I don't know. You have no basic respect which serves the stereotype of your kind - common dunce giving the rest of neo-Darwinism a bad name.Shut up punk

Source : Richard Milton "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism"Page 192"The key factor about the evolution of marsupials is that a large number of modern marsupial animals exist which - apart from the pouch and child rearing habits - are identical with placental mammals to an extroardinary degree. This is no mere general similarity of anatomical detail, but an almost perfect duplication of distinctive species like cats, rats, wolves, moles, flying squirrels, anteaters, and others. In addition there are distinctive marsupials which exist only in Australia, such as the koala and the kangaroo.How does it come about that in widely separated environments the same tiny shrewlike ancestral mammal of 65 million years ago should evolve on strictly paralell lines to produce virtually the same range of large mammals today ? The Tasmanian marsupial wolf is a virtual carbon copy of the European timber wolf. The marsupial flying phalanger is practically identical to the placental flying squirrel, as are the marsupial jerboa and the placental jerboa. When the skulls of the two wolves are placed side by side, it would take an experienced professional zoologist to tell them apart.The question for Darwinists is : How can a mouselike creature have evolved into two identical wolflike creatures (and two identical moles,etc.) on two different continents ? Doesn't this coincidence demand not merely highly improbable random mutations, but miraculous ones ?"END QUOTEThere are 3 question marks in Milton's quote.Next item.IF you believe that ALL persons who believe the Biblical flood account also believe that the Earth is of a young age (6 to 7 thousand years old) then I want to tell you this is not true.I believe the Biblical account but the Earth is obviously of immense age. Dr. Scott teaches that there are eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. God said REplenish the Earth, not plenish.Next item.I believe God's greatest creation is the human brain, how anyone cannot deduce intelligent design from the brain is.....well forget it . My question to you is, theorize or whatever I will not inundate you with "prove that" constantly, how can a piece of meat think ?This is a grab bag of starters.I will still reply to post #81 but I wanted to get this posted.Seems there is talk of shutting this topic/debate down and I do not know why.

Why do you assume that they were made back in the 50's ? Just because they were originally produced then doesn't mean the ones being sold were.Anything sold by Dr.Scott is sold through separate tax paying corporation owned by the church. He could piggyback and steal from the government like some religious entities do but he doesn't. Dr. Scott believes in paying taxes.No insult intended but you are ignorant of the origin and the awarding of Ph.D.'s. Like I said Dr.Scott's Ph.D. is from the university itself and is the last diploma handed out at graduation.
He had to prove that his doctoral dissertation was an original contribution to knowledge and he had to prove it before any professor who wanted the proof from any department, whereas the other Ph.D.'s from any particular department were only subject to the same criteria but ONLY from their department.

I think you have misunderstood. The very top of the post you replied to says I was quoting Richard Milton and not Dr.Scott. No problem I will look for your follow-up.And Richard Milton is saying it a non-creationist. He is asking how can chance mutation by chance create these virtually similar creatures on two different continents ?

oops I should of used Milton's exact words, I thought what I said was close enough.Milton is asking, that if mutation is random and by chance then how is it that the creatures in question could evolve when they are almost perfect duplicates and do it on two different continents. Now I posted the evidence that Milton wrote so you could answer it. My position is well known - intelligent design believer.

Your first two paragraphs wonder aloud how does the exclusion of the supernatural not make sense ?I respectfully say that the answer to this was the exact subject of my posts #112, 136, 237.As a creationist all I/we are saying is that God is the ultimate Creator - the Intelligent Designer and every scientist that concludes for whatever reason that He does not exist or did not create the universe is wrong, mistaken, confused, dishonest, or lying or a combination of any of these. To use scientific data as a proof and a basis to deny the existence of God is a leap of bias originating from one of their starting assumptions. Do all scientists do this ? Irrelevant, the issue and subject is the ones who do and the ones who do are the evolutionists of neo-Darwinism - this is why the "theory" exists - as an alternative explanation for the origin of life because the creationist account is deemed "irrational".You write, " might He not have worked through the natural laws and mechanisms He Himself set up ?" Yes !!! Of course, this is what we are saying that these natural laws and mechanisms that you brilliant scientists have discovered were designed and created by God. Things do not mutate by random chance - improvement by chance is not random or by chance it is God programmed or directed. This is what infuriates God, that Scientist credits a dunce called Random Chance instead of Him. God wants credit just like any scientist wants credit for his discoveries. Post #112, and 136 says this lack of credit triggers God to react a certain way which has already been covered by me in the aforementioned posts.The next segment of your reply quotes the Bible verse in question, then makes an illogical observation.Your point is to focus on to what you believe are "sadistic" or senseless abnormalities in nature, which is offered to say "If God is the creator and He is intelligent then why ...." are there cave dwelling rodents born with no eyes or this or that.....etc. etc.In other words just because you do not understand the reason why then we must conclude that an intelligent Creator would not do this , therefore this is evidence that He is not the Creator.You are placing God in a box that you constructed previously (it must make sense to me) or I will deduce what I already believed (that He does not exist or is not the Creator).There are an endless amount reasons as to why God might have purposely allowed the mechanisms that He designed to produce an eyeless rodent, perhaps to be defenseless prey as a food source to another animal ? I don't know and it is not the point.Now I quote you exactly " Please could you tell me on what grounds we should not make these deductions about this God of yours ?"The context of the above question was asked in lieu of the design "flaws" of nature which I have just answered.Question : IF you deduce that God does not exist or that creation was not intelligently designed from the so called flaws ( that was your point) then how come you cannot deduce the reverse from all that is not flawed ?

Post #249 answers your question.Variety is the spice of life, you place God on trial with your standard of what makes sense, which said standard is erected to have only one concluson - that God must neatly fit into your previously decided subjective dogma.How could God and His status as Creator (if true) depend on creation
always making sense to you ? You wrote this comprehensive post that ended with a ridiculous question. What difference does it make as to why there are so many varieties and why does variety or how does variety disprove God ?Maybe I am confused about your final point or question, but the main body of science that you posted is obviously quality stuff.

I cannot keep up with your replies and I will get back to Milton. There are no errors, if you claim there are then that is your assertion. I believe you are intentionally dodging the simple mystery posed by Milton.If mutation is by random chance then it would be almost miraculous that by chance so many virtually identical creatures could evolve on two different continents.You did mention convergence but failed to prove what that is and how exactly it solves the "mystery".Regarding mutation by random chance : Ok it is random and by chance because that is the way you observe it. Creationism simply says that this process that you call "mutation by random chance" was created and designed by God. What don't you understand ? We have been going around and around on this. I have said it time and time again over and over that I believe that what is made was created by God. Why is it that you associate the process of mutation and its random factor with God not being the Creator of that process ? Like a computer program that decides a winner by random chance - who designed the program ? In this example : God, this is the claim of creationism.For the record the post you replied to was directed at another member. And the quote you quoted was not me but that other member. I simply answered his question with "Yes, of course...."

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.You know, before this debate commensed I failed to demand that each side define their terms. No debate can take place unless certain things are assumed and a list of definitions of words and phrases is in place.I define "scientism" as a branch of science that has as its starting assumption that God does not exist. It can be logically deduced from this defintion that atheists make up the membership.Part of scientism is neo-Darwinism which are people who believe that God does not exist or is not the Creator - this is not a matter of opinion. This is who I am debating, which renders everything you said about the scientists who believe in God a non-sequitor.In previous posts I have laboriously argued that the ONLY reason that neo-Darwinism exists is to claim and to replace the claims of creationism as the explanation of the origins of life. This is also not a matter of opinion. If some early scientist claimed to be a creationist and then for whatever reason stopped then the reason this happened was the exact subject of my posts #112, #136. It doesn't matter what THEY CLAIM, God in His book says the reason they reject Him as Creator is because He has removed their ability to recognize Him as the Creator as a penalty for continually rejecting Him as Creator.You can disagree with this and say the evidence supports that creation was not intelligently designed - fine. The reason you say this is because God has darkened your mind for doing what you already were inclined to want to do regardless of what you say the reason is.
God says modern intellectualism wants to do away with Him because they do not want to deal with a Creator. Did I say every intellectual ? No I did not. I already defined the context to be scientism.You said "scientism is a philosophy" Yes I agree. Their philosophy exists in the atheist worldview and all of their work and endeavours is offered under the starting assumption that God does not exist.Does this negate legitimate genuine scientific discoveries that are made ? NO IT DOES NOT . These discoveries should stand alone and not be granted automatic twin legitimacy to also evidence their starting assumption that God does not exist.Many posters in this room want to deny that neo-Darwinism challenges the existence of God. This is silly, of course it does this is the whole reason for the debate. This is why Darwin came up with his theory as an alternative explanation for the origin of life. Darwin rejected God to be the Creator. He rejected creationism this is basic 101 stuff.You say "neo-Darwinism is the best explantion of life......name one religion that can explain the origin of life better..." What ? Did you take a stupid pill ? God is the creator this is what the debate is about. Why can't natural selection (if true) be a process that God created ? This is all God wants is ultimate credit and a word of thanks (Romans 1:20-25) This is my only quarrel.What you label as "pseudo-authorities" is a country bumpkin dismissal of my sources. In other words "you don't agree" this is what you should of said and I can respect that if you could tell me why.I can refuse to acknowledge the legitmacy of your sources just because I disagree and we will get nowhere.Richard Leakey is a brilliant scientist - it is not a matter of opinion. But when he says the evidence means that God does not exist (if this is true) then this is where the bias of his starting assumption has intruded into the evidence. But Leakey IS saying the evidence is saying that God does not exist, everything he does scientifically is offered in the larger context of assumption that God is not the Creator - this is not a matter of opinion.If you disagree then we have nothing to debate.

Ned: I am a creationist and I say it is the claim of creationism.You are not a creationist so you can claim whatever you want about what you think creationism claims.How do you conclude from the products of natural selection that God could not of created this process ? This is an assumption based upon your starting bias.You make this assumption because the existence of natural selection does not fit into your previously constructed box of how God must be.I only challenge natural selection if it is offered as evidence that God could not of created it.Tell me Ned, how does natural selection and chance mutation evidence the non-existence of an intelligent Creator ? The only answer you can offer is an answer based upon a previous belief of how God must be.For the sake of argument I believe in natural selection and chance mutation and I believe that they are processes created by God. Where we depart is you say that God would/could never create this way. What is the source and basis of this belief Ned ?