Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

You've just let the creator of this topic off the hook. This person has done absolutely zero work in his own topic except deny, deny, deny.Whatever scientific evidence that I have posted is my scientific evidence against evolution.Nothing has been refuted except that which you refuted and I accepted.I also admitted my original mistake (post 223) was to topic in a scientific arena, but I have laboriously argued the relevance of God sense in relation to the scientific and this was my foundational evidence.This Admin post of yours is equivalent to a judge not admitting evidence and thus gutting someones case.You say the six questions are or should be topics of their own. Then these points are evidence but NOT in my case. This doesn't make any sense.Those six points/questions are my evidence and they remain directed at the creator of this topic.Whatever you decide, if anything, I will genuinely abide by knowing I have had ample opportunity. Thank You.

George C. Williams said information and matter are two separate entities and must be discussed as such.Information exists in or upon or is contained in DNA.Are you arguing that DNA does not contain specialized information ?I only want to say that a large amount of scientists believe generically that DNA contains information. If this is true, then by what evolutionary process might have produced the information step by step ?If the information can be represented mathematically would you generally believe it to be less eligible to be falsified ?Look, lots of books are emerging that are trying to refute Behe's Black Box. The crux of these books simply declare that the alleged information contained in DNA can also emerge randomly. But they fail to say how. Yet this isn't the issue. The issue is the origin and the inteligence qualities of the information.If I say the organism and its DNA were the result of a random mutation, then I ascribe the entire event to be the ultimate creation of a Creator, YOU cannot objectively disagree unless your personal beliefs come into play ?I can deduce a Designer from the scientific evidence, some cannot.How can order constantly emerge from fluke ?What is the rational basis to believe the key to the past is the present ? Isn't this a subjective hope necessary for evolutionary theory ?Here is the reason why I reject the main concepts of evolution :Man started from an ape like ancestor and gradually became upright and improved over eons of time.The Bible says Adam-kind was created and he was extremely smart, but man got real dumb and only now is getting his ultra-intelligence back again.These two scenarios are far far apart. Only one can be correct.The intelligence of the ancients and their wonders is a slice of proof in favor of the Biblical record.The mathematical genius incorporated into the Great Pyramid of Giza is irrefutable. This immutable fact in itself sinks the evolution scenario by itself.I am perfectly content with taking the scientific discoveries and ascribing them to the work of a Creator. If your ilk is honest when you claim the evidence is presented as Divine neutral then what possible objection could you raise ?If you claim the evidence points to no Creator then isn't this a contradiction to the claims of methodological naturalism and rational enquiry ?

The statement that you cut and pasted (from my post #257), a statement that strikes you as convoluted, confirms the straightness of it in my eyes.The evolutionary scenario says mankind today evolved from an ape-like ancestor. This theoretical scenario has an unintelligent animal slowly and gradually evolving into an intelligent upright human being.Sarcastically said, ape eventually became this very low intelligent cave man, which gradually improved in physical stature and intelligence. This progession of improvement was continuously progressing and improving.The Biblical record says man was created. Adam-kind and his descendants were ultra-intelligent having been closer to the Source of Life. This " ultra-state " gradually diminished as man under the influence of Satan misused free-will (sin) which incapacitated his ability to " relate to his environment ". That environment was/is
the nearness of the Source of Life/God.Adam-kind gradually became less in length of life AND intelligence. The Flood resulted in the disappearance of the watery firmament and exposure to the sun which dramatically decreased life-spans. This long descent of man's decline in intelligence suddenly ceased when the Renaissance exploded.From the Renaissance on man has taken enormous steps in regaining his " ultra-state ". But man is still far away from being as great as he first was.In sum, the Bible has man created and starting out real smart, and then getting real dumb and only now is re-obtaining his former glory.Evolution has man evolving upward from an animal into his present state.Like I said in post # 257 these two scenarios are far far apart and only one of them can be correct.My point about the Pyramid is as follows :How does the evolutionary scenario provide for the intelligence of the Pyramid builders ? If man slowly and gradually goes up in stature and intelligence then what accounts for the genius of the design and construction of the Pyramid ?If the Pyramid was built between 6 and 7 thousand years ago then we have a micro burst of ultra intelligence that the evolutionary processes cannot explain, but the Bible does.The Pyramid was built having pi incorporated into it. How many of thousands of years elapsed before western minds discovered pi ?It is wrongly assumed that Egyptians built the Pyramid. The Suez Canal is in Egypt but everyone knows that the British built it.Isaiah 19:19 is the great Bible verse referring to the Pyramid. Take the numerical value of each Hebrew letter in that verse and add them up. The sum totals the exact height of the Pyramid from its base to the apex. ( using the sacred inch which is one fiftieth of an inch different from the British inch ). The exact geographic location of the .... " Pillar "/Pyramid has it built in the exact center of Egypt AND on the border of Upper and Lower Egypt. {source : E. Raymond Capt, author of "The Great Pyramid Decoded "}As per your # 2 sentence : The design and building of the Great Pyramid is a monumental hammer smashing the evolutionary scenario previously outlined. This is SOME evidence against evolution.

Negative Mr. Austin :The outer limestone block casings that made up the exterior of the Pyramid were stripped off by Moslems to make their Mosques with. These limestone blocks were found to extend beneath the base. Scientists discovered these blocks and projected up from there.

The point about the "inch" is that the Sacred and British/American inch are just one fiftieth of an inch apart. That is the variation over thousands of years.For you to quickly accuse someone of making up reveals your ignorance in the subject.You also failed to address the general evidence of the differences in the two scenarios (Evolution/Creation)How does the evolutionary scenario of slow gradual improvement account for the ultra-intelligence of the Pyramid designer and builders ?Did you know that the sides of the Pyramid are indeed slightly concave/curved ? If you extend this curvature into a circle the circumference of the circle drawn will be the exact circumference of the Earth.When did modern man discover the exact circumference of the Earth ? I can tell you that until space flight we did not know for certain.I do not want to go on about the Pyramid. My point is that the Pyramid and its wonders are accounted for in the Biblical record. The evolutionary scenario cannot incorporate micro burst of intelligence if it says man's ascent was always gradually upward.

You answered with challenging replies. I am preparing a response. Thank You.

Loudmouth answers :The objection that you are ascribing a creator for natural phenomena without evidence. This is how science is objective, it works with natural phenomena that everyone can experience, as compared to personal revelation. Science does not judge on the existence of a diety, but it does argue against supernatural causes for natural phenomena. The diversification of species is a natural phenomena, unless you can show the supernatural emergence of species. END QUOTEEvolutionists are the ones arbitrarily excluding the Creator without evidence. Romans says the God neutral clauses contained in the claims of methodological naturalism and rational enquiry are really, in fact, God exclusionary.IF for any reason, God is excluded as a possibility, He punishes by removing the capacity to deduce His fingerprints. Violators insight/God sense is removed. This explains the hostility of neo-Darwinism at large toward the God of the Bible.The ancients and every generation since them up until the emergence of Darwinism held unquestioning belief that God is the Creator.For thousands and thousands of years, billions and billions of people were all wrong, mistaken, or deceived. That is the MESSAGE contained in the philosophy that the scientific evidence of evolution rests in.We are to believe that the interpretation of scientific evidence by neo-Darwinists cancels out the beliefs of every generation of man that held God created what is made."But we don't make any conclusions about the Divine"I'm sorry, but you are a frickin liar.The very title of this website says "Evolution versus Creationism", this implies the obvious.Genesis says that God suddenly created Adam-kind and the animal kingdom.Darwinism says man and animal slowly and gradually evolved over eons and eons of time.These two scenarios are astronomically apart. Only one can be correct.Evolutionists say animal species randomly mutate.This word "randomly" also means a Creator was not involved. EvC member Darwinsterrier says "what is ruled out" is a single Almighty Creator "operating at the height of His powers".I thought Darwinists were neutral toward God ?This ruling out is the a priori decision that triggers the wrath of God/sense removal.Carl Sagan ruled Him out too when he uttered his famous opening statement about "the cosmos is all there ever was". Sagan then went on to present scientific evidence, which of course was gathered under the false guise of neutrality. Sagan supporters : How does the evidence disprove God ? What qualifications did Sagan possess to make a determination about the Divine ?I believe mutation is observed to be a "mindless and random process".
I believe this process has the appearance of mindlessness/randomness and I believe it was created by God and progammed to operate this way.The Book of Esther doesn't mention God's name - not even once, yet every respected mainstream scholar agrees that it belongs in the Canon. It tells the story of Esther and Mordecai emerging victorious from the threat of genocide of Jews. It is an account of seemingly random and chance and fluke events that twist and turn. The message of the Book of Esther is: GOD IS IN CONTROL. Thats the reason He included it in the Holy Writ.Now Cal State physicist Mark Perakh has written a book called "Unintelligent Design" (2004). This book is specifically written to counter the claims of Dembski, Behe, and Johnson.Perakh Quote :"Of course, the proponets of ID theory may insist that the alleged intelligent Creator is not constrained in His choice of design and can, if He wishes so, create systems which appear random despite having been designed. This argument would essentially make the entire dispute meaningless by erasing any discernable difference between objects or events that are designed and those that are not." ENDI interpret this statement to say "randomness" also means a Creator/Designer was not involved.Once again, how does the scientific evidence of random (mutation) suggest no Creator ?random, mindless, fluke, accident all have dual meanings when (atheist) Darwinists use them.The word evolution also means the Genesis creation scenario is not true. How does the evidence disprove Genesis ?I believe the micro-evolution that drives the animal kingdom to be a process created by God.Massive error (intentional) is introduced when it is assumed that mankind also evolved.There simply isn't enough physical fossil evidence in existence to conclude man evolved. Leakey/Pilbeam/Darwinsterrier all agree the amount in existence is "meagre".Darwinists have no other option but to cling to the hope of finding a lot more transitional bones that can be independently verified as human like. They have arbitrarily decided God is not an option. Romans, like I said, tells us why.Michael Behe evidenced that the eye could not of evolved because there is no evolutionary process by which the complexity of its design could have gradually came into existence. The eye, like blood clotting systems, are irreducibly complex.Once again, Behe's clear and simple point is that the whole enchilada must be present or it aint so.Mark Perakh completely ignores this simple claim by re-defining "irreducibly complex" to be a synonym for randomness. Perakh evades ever answering exactly how the complexities in question slowly evolve and work all at the same time.Perakh Quote :"Algorithmic Theory of Probability (ATP) has established that irreducible complexity is just a synonym for randomness. Whatever examples of biochemical systems Behe can come up with, he cannot eschew the mathematical fact: if a system is indeed irreducibly complex, it its random. Of course, a system that is the result of ID is, by defintion, not random. The conclusion: if a system is irreducibly complex, it is not a product of design. " END QUOTEI interpret this statement to completely evade the claims of Behe. And I interpret this statement to arbitrarily equate IC with randomness without any explanatory rationale.A clever sixth grader could of offered this argument of inverting/saying the opposite of what is claimed by Behe. I read this entire book waiting to see Behe refuted, and all the author could do was re-define IC, and say nothing about Behe's defintion, which said defintion asks how the irreducibly complex might have evolved and worked at the same time.In lieu of Perakh's quote, how does science justify making a determination of no Designer from the scientific evidence of randomness ? I thought science was God neutral ?I credit Perakh for being honest and plainly saying the evidence also says no Creator was involved.Philosophically, every debater who knows the status of the argument says God cannot be proven or disproven.The only people saying there is no Creator are the new kids on the block - the Darwinists. They conclude this position from their worldview and claim the empirical evidence supports it. But when questioned how the evidence disproves God they suddenly deny that they are ........as per the responses prove me right.

Let the record show that every "response" to my post # 276 to be a flimsy one liner type of reply.Reply 277 doesn't make any sense as the author suddenly offers disheveled claims. Maybe this was a late night post created under the influence.Reply 278 is routine predictible for this person. No objective person monitoring this debate could even remotely have respect for this type of participation.Reply 279 completely evades the substance of my post. This person is barely participating, but not enough to differentiate from the previous post.Reply 280 is really no different but it will have to do.You are all wasting my time, you all lose the debate by default, which I must conclude to be caused by lack of arguments.How can anyone respect these replies in lieu of post # 276 ?I don't think I am right - I know I am right.Hitchy, if you had paid attention to this debate you would know that my opponents specifically argued that science/evolution is Divine neutral not Divine exclusionary.Hitchy, how does the empirical evidence disprove God/Genesis ?" it doesn't claim to "Then you need to correct what you said in your first paragraph about ToE excluding "supreme being".IF ToE is God neutral then why are Darwinists so hostile to the God of the Bible ? Could it be that they really are making determinations about the Divine contrary to the claims of methodological naturalism and rational enquiry ?mindless, random, chance, accident, fluke, purposeless, also means there is no Almighty Creator when neo- Darwinists use these words.
How so ? And if so, why ? What rational leap of logic is utilized to determine the lack of a Creator based on the scientific evidence ?I've made my point.The answer is obvious. Evolution means gradual and slow improvement via mutation. This process has no room for Genesis because of the eons and eons of time it requires AND because Genesis clearly says life was suddenly created by God.Evolution deduces no Creator based upon an interpretation of the empirical evidence. My point is that it all comes down to worldview whether it is admitted or not.

Concerning the quote you cut and pasted, then concerning your coments about this quote : Where did I mention christianity ? You assumed christianity, thanks for the accuracy.

You need to define TE and then I will answer you.Thank you, in advance for whatever time and effort you put into this reply.

300 pages of evolution debate and I have contributed 19 posts (only 1 with any length) 18 of them one liners of denial.While my intended opponent has posted 34 replies and he didn't even enter the debate until the 59th page. And a significant amount of these posts were of notable length.Who am I ?Answer : I am the Kendemeyer of evolution.My name is WjAnd regardless of the actual truth I just deny , deny , deny and before you know it 300 pages have come and gone and I didn't say a damn thing.