Evolution is Not Science

While evolutionists are quite fond of parroting the phrase, "Creation Science isn't science", they insist that the theory of evolution is true science. I question how many evolutionists would disagree with the following.
**********************************************************************[1] Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation.
[1a]It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn[2] Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence.
[2a]It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.[3] Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence.
[3a]It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.**********************************************************************
I have long claimed that the TOE is anything but true science. In reality it is nothing more than a rehash of very old pagan religious beliefs, with a few new twists thrown in for good measure.
At {Sitestar Internet Operations | }, the website source for material quoted throughout this post, the material made available would seem to be in agreement with me that evolution is not a true science but is indeed a system of religious beliefs, when we insist upon using the accepted definition of science. Below are futher comments from the same site.
**********************************************************************.......Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism.**********************************************************************
Now, while evolutionists would prefer to deny the ancient beginings of their religious beliefs, history cannot be denied. The religion of naturalism, or evolution, is older than nearly every recognized religious belief in practice today. It has been slightly modified to fit in with todays mindset, but its' basic tenets remain intact.
**********************************************************************Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity. Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold. Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their "science", and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely "scientific" grounds.
One of the most glaring evidences that Evolution is unscientific is the refusal of its proponents to respond to its critics in a fair-handed way. Instead, critics of Evolution are subjected to scorn and ridicule, and dismissed as mental midgets or religious crackpots. When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.**********************************************************************
In this thread, I will present articles that confirm the religious nature of the evolutionary beliefs as well as articles that show it is not the true science that it proponents claim it to be. This is not to say that scientific measures are never taken in the study of evolution, only that science is often abandoned, as it must be, to support many of the assertions made by evolutionists. Let us begin by having evolutionists comment on the following observation.
**********************************************************************The Mechanisms of Evolution are Fatally Flawed.Evolution makes great but empty claims that it is based upon scientific evidence. In reality, Evolution is based primarily upon hypothetical mechanisms for how life might have begun and developed complexity and function...*Abiogenesis - the belief that life arose from non-living matter through random interactions among naturally-occurring chemicals,*Random Mutation - a proposed mechanism of how new genetic material might have come into existence,*Natural Selection - a proposed mechanism of how beneficial genetic traits are selected and preserved,*Vast Periods of Time - the belief that the universe is billions of years old, and the naive assumption that that is sufficient time to work the Evolutionary miracles needed to turn "primordial soup" into the vast diversity of plants and animals existent today.Evolutionists appeal to these hypothetical mechanisms in an attempt to demonstrate the plausibility of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. Because of their natural depravity, many people find this an attractive alternative to the idea of a holy, all-powerful Creator. Having rejected the idea of a divine Creator from the outset, they readily suppose that any argument for the plausibility of Evolution constitutes proof of Evolution. But just how plausible are these hypothetical mechanisms of evolution? Could they really accomplish the fantastic feat of bringing modern-day life into existence purely by natural causes?**********************************************************************
Let us refrain from the erroneous statement that evolution makes no attempt to deal with the origin of life via abiogenesis. By making this false claim, evolutionists show their deceptive bias while denying the mechanisms that demand recognition in order for the theory of evolution to even be plausible. Every idea has its beginning and the beginning of the evolutionary process is abiogenesis. To deny this fact is to shine the light of ignorance on an already flawed hypothesis. The study of the "origin of the species" must recognize its' starting point and learn to deal with it in an honest and open manner. No novel is regarded as being complete by removing the preface, introduction, and beginning chapters. Neither can the TOE be regarded as being complete by removing its causal beginnings. (We will ignore the absence of an explanation as to how the chemicals necessary for abiogenesis came into existance, for now anyway!) If you insist on claiming that the ToE makes no attempt to deal with how life arose, please begin your re-education at the following site,
{UCSD IT Service Portal - Information Technology}, which will help you to understand where you went wrong in your thought process. Once you have recognized that abiogenesis and the Toe are inextricably linked, you will be better equipped to accept the obvious flaws in the ToE that will be revealed in this continuing thread.

What about the fossil record?It has been stated by evolutionists again and again that the fossil record supports evolution. (Some have even been so bold as to state that the fossil record proves evolution occurred, while in the same breath saying that the ToE doesn't attempt to prove anything.)The actual truth is that those who espouse the ToE must do so in spite of the fossil record. Pick any species and then discuss the fossil record that shows its progression from a simple life form to the complex form that it is today. Good luck trying to find one. They don't exist. In actuality, the fossil record is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the ToE.**********************************************************************
"Evolution is not Supported by Observed Evidence.
Observed scientific evidence simply does not agree with the claims of Evolution. There are two areas of evidence that serve as tests by which we may determine whether Evolution is responsible for the complexity and diversity of plant and animal life we see today. One area is the fossil evidence. The other is the biochemical evidence. As we shall see, both the fossil evidence and the biochemical evidence refute the Evolutionist's version of the origin and development of life.The Fossil Evidence Refutes Evolution.
If Evolution occurred in the past we would expect it to see clear evidence of it in the fossil record. However, the fossil record produces no evidence whatever that Evolution occurred. Indeed, an unbiased look at the fossil evidence indicates that Evolution did not occur. There are no transitional forms linking the various species to one another. Even the layering sequence demanded by Evolution is contradicted by the fossil record. The Evolutionist's "geologic column", frequently depicted in textbooks, is based almost entirely on speculation and Evolutionary assumptions. In short, one must believe in Evolution in spite of the fossil record, not because of it.No one denies that extinct animals, such as dinosaurs, ptersosaurs, trilobites, saber-tooth tigers and wooly mammoths, once roamed the earth, but extinction of animals that once existed is no proof that new animal species have come into existence. Even in recent times, animals such as the dodo and the passenger pigeon have become extinct, and many others are on the endangered species list. Evolutionists make the unwarranted assumption that, when the dinosaurs existed, there were no mammals on the earth, and that when the trilobites lived, there were only small aquatic animals. These assumptions flow from Evolutionist presuppositions, not from any consideration of the fossil evidence.Systematic Gaps in the Fossil Record.
If Evolution were true, the fossil record should show evidence of continual change, having fossils at nearly every stage of evolutionary development. Instead, Evolutionists have had to confess that huge gaps occur in the fossil record at nearly every place where transitions were expected.The earliest fossil-bearing rock is called "Cambrian" rock. If Evolution were true, this is where we would expect to see simple life forms, and only a relative handful of various types. Instead, however, life seems to have "exploded" into being in the Cambrian rock. The diversity and complexity of Cambrian fossils defies Evolutionist explanations.Similar "gaps" exist in the supposed transition from fish to amphibian, from amphibian to reptile, from reptile to bird, from bird to mammal, and from ape to man. Moreover, gaps exist between various kinds of fish, various kinds of reptiles, etc.George Gaylord Simpson, a prominent Evolutionist, writes ...This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.
The only explanation that Evolutionists can seem to suggest is that the fossil record is very fragmentary, and that many layers of rock are missing, for example, between Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian rock. However, this is merely conjecture, devoid of supporting evidence.Certainly, we would expect gaps in the fossil record from one part of the globe to be filled in by fossils from other parts of the globe. Why would all the gaps occur simultaneously worldwide? At any given time, would there not be sedimentation occurring somewhere on the globe that would leave a fossil record of the life existing at that time? But the gaps are a fact of paleontology.
J. B. Waterhouse, another Evolutionist, wrote ...But how good is the geological record? I have already mentioned that the ordinary viewpoint of evolution held by most paleontologists favours gradual incremental change. The fossil record, they say, is too incomplete to take seriously. And, they say, you cannot prove a gap. But of course you can prove a gap, especially if clines occurred. If there is a break in the record it must be possible to detect the break.The main point about breaks is that, if they were really random, as proposed by Darwin, they must have been plugged by one hundred and fifty years of work. But the gaps have not been plugged. They still persist; yet authorities still plead the cause of failure of preservation. Such authorities forget that if there is a million to one chance of one specimen of a population being preserved, and then if that species lived 5-15 m.y., we therefore will get 5-15 times the population fossilized. The trouble may perhaps have lain more truthfully in our failure to find or describe the material. It is special pleading to rely on gaps, and it is special pleading to propose inadequate preservation. We would do better to look at what the record really says.And the Evolutionist, Lyall Watson, has this to say...
Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.No undisputed transitional fossil has yet been found. The fossil record is the only natural record we have of the history of life forms, and it does not provide any support whatsoever of the Darwinist hypothesis of gradual ascent. Evolutionists have no business trying to explain away the lack of evidence until they first have demonstrated evidence for their theory."
{Sitestar Internet Operations | }
**********************************************************************With the sophistication of todays' scienctific endeavors, one would think that so many gaps in the fossil record would have been filled by now so as to lay this discussion to rest once and for all. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence that the fossil record does not support the ToE, and in fact seems to dispute it, the evolutionists still declare just the opposite of the reality. Evolutionists can not pick one single species and trace its' evolution through the fossil record to present day. Neo-darwinians and evolutionary lay-persons are often willing to make the claim that the fossil record gives ample evidence of the ToE but the true scientific minds know better than to make claims that they cannot back up with real evidence.**********************************************************************
From Dr. Senapathy:
"The sudden appearance of numerous creatures in the fossil record without any common ancestors is a strong indication that all of these creatures originated simultaneously. The fact that the creatures in the Cambrian explosion were unique and evolutionarily unconnectable, and the appearance of entirely new creatures later in the fossil record, also support the new theory, while repudiating all evolutionary theories. And finally, many creatures that originated eons ago have remained virtually unchanged through the millennia -- a contradiction of evolution, but a firm corroboration for the new theory.""Although many details in the fossil record discredit evolution, evolutionists have always tried to force these details into the domain of evolutionary theory -- because so far there has been no scientific infrastructure to offer any other type of explanation. ... [M]any evolutionary biologists and paleontologists themselves clearly recognize the problems presented by the fossil record."
{http://www.mattox.com/genome/fossil.html}
**********************************************************************Now, I ask in advance for you to forgive the length of the following but as the last sentence will indicate, it is done for the benefit of the evolutionists who are fond of accusing creationists of quoting out of context. One of the initial responses to this topic was that the scientific community has abandoned the theory of creation. Apart from being a totally erroneous statement, it does a great disservice to the thousands of legitimate scientists who just happen to be creationists. There are thousands more who are evolutionists whose own statements of Darwinian evolution are less than supportive on all counts.**********************************************************************
EVOLUTION’S EMBARRASSMENT: THE FOSSIL RECORDBy Jon Covey, B.A., MT(ASCP)
Edited by Anita K. Millen, M.D., M.P.H., M.A.At one of our meetings, Dr. Galen Hunsicker, a zoology professor at Southern California University, explained that one segment of Darwin’s unfinished business involved the unfilled gaps in the fossil record, which encouraged the development of the Punctuated Equilibrium Hypothesis. Darwin fully expected those gaps would be filled by new discoveries, but they have not. Continued collecting of fossils has only served to emphasize the discontinuities, not fill them.FALSE CLAIMS OF TRANSITION FORMS MADE IN MOST TEXTBOOKSBy the time nearly 100 years of intensified searching by professional and amateur collectors for missing links had been done, George Gaylord Simpson, who was one of the twentieth century’s leading paleontologists and professor of vertebrate paleontology at Harvard, explained the problem:"A great deal is knownan amazing amount in view of these limitationsand it would be pointless to emphasize once more the general incompleteness of the paleontological record, except to stress that this incompleteness is an essential datum and that it, as well as the positive data, can be studied with profit. When the record does happen to be good, it commonly shows complete continuity in the rise of such taxonomic categories as species and genera and sometimes, but rarely, in higher groups. When breaks or apparent saltations do occur within lines that are true or structural phyla, frequently they can be shown to be due to one of the two causes now exemplified: to hiatuses in the time record caused by nondeposition of middle strata or fossils and to sampling of migrants instead of main lines. Continued discovery and collecting have the constant tendency to fill in gaps. The known series are steadily becoming more, never less, continuous In cannot be shown that discontinuity between, let us say, genera has never occurred, but the only rational conclusion from these facts is that no discontinuity is usually found and that there is no paleontological evidence that really tends to prove that there is any. On these levels everything is consistent with the postulate that we are sampling what were once continuous sequences. The collections include about as many continuous series and about as many breaks in various phyla as would be expected from the nature and intensity of the sampling so far accomplished."MAJOR SYSTEMATIC DISCONTINUITIES OF RECORD"The levels to which these conclusions apply without modification are approximately those discussed as macroevolution (under that or an equivalent term) by neozoologists and biologists. On still higher levels, those of what is here called ‘mega-evolution’, the inferences might still apply, but caution is enjoined, because here essentially continuous transitional sequences are not merely rare, but are virtually absent. [my emphasised.] These large discontinuities are less numerous, so that paleontological examples of their origin should also be less numerous; but their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, offhand, be imputed entirely to chance and does require some attempt at special explanation, as has been felt by most paleontologists."Matthew has pointed out (e.g., 1926) that Hyracotherium (Eohippus) [Kerkut says, "The alleged horse ancestor, which more closely resembles the coney than the horse, and could have just as easily been considered the ancestor for tapirs or rhinos"]{1} is so nearly a generalized primitive perissodactyl [odd-toed hoofed mammaled.] that it could be near the ancestry, if not itself the ancestor, of all the later families of perissodactyls. Knowledge of a nearly continuous sequence leading to the horses and ignorance of smaller or larger parts of sequences leading to other families (tapirs, rhinoceroses, titanotheres, and so forth), at first closely similar, might be due only to chance. But nowhere in the world has any recognizable trace been found of an animal that would close the considerable structural gap between Hyracotherium and the most likely ancestral order, the Condylarthra."This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals, and in most cases the break in the record is still more striking than in the case of the perissodactyls, for which a known earlier group does at least provide a good structural ancestry. The earliest and most primitive know members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed [my emphasis-ed.]. Of course the orders all converge backward in time to different degrees [debatable]. The earliest known members are much more alike than the latest highly diverse ungulates [hoofed mammals] did have a common ancestry; but the line making actual connection with such an ancestry is not known in even one instance."As regards the orders of mammals [he refers to the table on his pp. 108-109] and Fig. 16 [in his book] give some idea of the inadequacy of the record, both systematic, with regard to the origins of the various groups, and random, within the orders once they have appeared in the fossil record."Listing of data as to the occurrence of possible ancestry involves subjective judgment as to what constitutes a ‘possible ancestry,’ and in some cases opinions differ radically because of the magnitude of the morphological gaps between the bases of ordinal records. These data are also strongly affected by random, and in some cases also systematic, gaps in the records concerning possible ancestors. They do, however, more nearly than any other available information provide objective criteria as to the span within which the orders probably originated."This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. Among genera and species some apparent regularity of absence of transitional types is clearly a taxonomic artifact: artificial divisions between taxonomic units are for practical reasons established where random gaps exist. This does not adequately explain the systematic occurrence of gaps between larger units [my emphasis]. In the cases of the gaps that are artifacts, the effect of discovery has been to reveal their random nature and has tended to fill in now one, now anothernow from the ancestral, and now from the descendent side. In most cases discoveries relating to the major breaks have produced a more or less tenuous extension backward of the descendent groups, leaving the probable contact with the ancestry a sharp boundary. None of these large breaks has actually been filled by real, continuous sequences of fossils [my emphasis], although many of them can be exactly located and the transitions described by inference from the improved record on both sides."{2}BibliographyKerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, New York, 1960, p. 149.
2. G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York, 1944, p. 107.I included the above lengthy quote, because evolutionists often accuse creationists of quoting them out of context. I have included the context, and I think it is very clear that the gaps in the fossil record are far from trivial and they are extremely discontinuous, contrary to what Dr. Kroman said during our mini-debate at CSUDH. It was because of this feature in the fossil record that Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History formulated the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis. Furthermore, also contrary to what Dr. Kroman said, the Precambrian fossil record does not show a continuous sequence leading to the Cambrian stage. The morphological distinctions of the blue-green algae from the Precambrian are far removed from the complex organisms found in the Cambrian, e.g., mollusks, brachiopods, and trilobites.
{Page not found – Creation In The Crossfire}
**********************************************************************Rather than have the evolutionists in here simply repeat that old mantra about the fossil record and how it fully supports the ToE, perhaps they could provide some actual evidence of a an unbroken fossil record from simple life form to present day. Several examples of such would be preferable but one or two will suffice for now. Whether you offer something from your own studies and work, or offer examples of anothers work, through cut-n-paste, links, references, or whatever suits your fancy, please provide ample exposure to the work provided so that all who wish to do so may examine the evidence at their leisure. Obviously, you are welcome to rehash some of the old, if not abandoned and in some cases refuted, arguments to support your position. However, please recognize that certain claims that have been made in the past have already been shown to be totally erroneous and any attempt to resubmit them will most likely be viewed as a poorly veiled exercise in futility. Refrain from submitting a Strawman or a Tinman argument. Most of you should be familiar with the concept of a "Strawman argument", but for those of you who are unfamiliar with the "Tinman argument", understand that it is mainly used in law enforcement circles. I will offer you an example of a "Tinman argument" so as to help clarify its' meaning to those who have not been exposed to it before."A young man is arrested for murder. The murder weapon is found in his automobile with his fingerprints on it. Ballistics proves it is the weapon used in the murder. Through a legal technicality, because the gun was supposedly seized illegally, it is dismissed as evidence. Because of the dismissal of the gun as evidence, the murderer was set free due to lack of evidence. Though the young mans' guilt was not in doubt by law enforcement officials, this legal technicality allowed a murderer to go free."So, to summarize, "The murder weapon, by reason of technicality, is not to be considered as evidence = Tinman Argument."
Any and all evidence that is dismissed because it does not fit into specific categories based upon preconceived, yet quite illogical technicalities will be viewed as a tinman argument. Do not become offended if you are accused of supporting a tinman argument.......it never bothered Johnny Cochran. In fact, it made him famous![Edited to fix dead links. --Percy]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-17-2002]

If that is the limit of your criticisms to what was posted, I am surprised that you would remain as a proponent of evolutionary thought.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edge:
"Hmm, that'a lot of gaps for the scripture to explain. Why don't you try evolutionary theory? It works."Right! Most circular arguments do work, if only in the mind of those whose propose them."Seriously, Jet, where did you get this nonsense? It isn't even worth the time to read your rambling, confused, semiliterate laundry list of creationist drivel. If you have an item that you want to discuss, please bring it up. That's why we have threads, to break down the discussion into manageable units. As I have shown above you have committed several errors of faulty information and logic. Please try to recover some credibility and discuss one or two topics sensibly."I see you have little, if anything, to offer in the way of serious rebuttal. You simply put forth the tried and true method of unsubstantiated claims, peppered with insult, when your beliefs are challenged. You merely parrot the old and erroneous claim that the fossil record supports evolution. It does not, it never has, and it never will. The ToE is one of the most unscientific theories being espoused today, a theory that must continually change itself due to insurmountable evidence that shows it to be in constant error. Your refusal to acknowledge those errors, and claim that the ToE corrects itself, (which is a sign of true science), is laughable. I will continue to wait for the one or two examples in the fossil record that shows the evolution of a species from lower life form to modern day species. If the fossil record is so supportive of evolution, this should be an easy task to perform."A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another. Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows: A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. They have also had to deal with the futility of waiting for "missing" transitional forms to appear in the future, as explained by a professor of paleontology from Glasgow University, T. Neville George: There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."
http://www.harunyahya.com/20evolution01.phpWe are even exposed to new and daring theories on how evolution occurred, theories that wholly abandon Darwinian thought. I have not examined this new theory indepth, so refrain from any assertions that I personally endorse it.
http://www.globaldialog.com/~morse/bsw/sample02.htmThe contention that all of science agrees that evolution is a viable theory, and that all other theoretical positions that may explain the origin of life have been abandoned, is one of the most ridiculous statements that could be made by an evolutionist, and is usually done by the lay-person who has no expertise in any field of science. In reality, their are multiplied thousands of scientists who reject Darwinian thought in particular, and evolutionary thought in general, as a means to explain the origins of life. Once a scientist makes a negative comment concerning evolutionary thought, they are usually dismissed by the lessor educated with no further regard given to their abundance of credentials. This is understandable in regards to those particular scientists who promote creation over evolution, as the bias against them is abundantly clear, but it is a somewhat mysterious behaviour towards those scientists who still lay claim to evolution as the best explanation for the origin of the species."Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths"
"These articles strive to present the factual evidence supporting creation as the correct explanation for our existence. The misconception that evolution is science while creation is religion is propagated by a variety of "myths" surrounding the evidence for evolution.Myth: Our universe is the result of the explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago.
Reality: Explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity?Myth: The fossil record proves evolution.
Reality: There are no clear transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Any three objects can be lined up but this does not prove that one turned into the other.Myth: Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry.
Reality: Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for similarities. The lack of fossil transitions strongly refutes this belief. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a more direct way. In addition, totally different organism often display similar features.Myth: The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth's history showing millions of years of evolutionary progression.
Reality: The fossil record does not show a clear, "simple-to-complex" of life forms. Life is complex and well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events.Myth: Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They are accurate and reliable.
Reality: Although radiometric dating methods seem to show a trend of great age, these methods depend upon numerous other assumptions. When used to date events of known age, such as lava flow in Hawaii or the Grand Canyon, they have been wrong by orders of magnitude. How can we be sure they are accurate for events of unknown age? Furthermore, the vast majority of dating method indicate a very young earth.Myth: The human body contains many "vestigial organs" , leftovers from our evolutionary development.
Reality: Although at one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as vestigial, the vast majority have been shown to have important functions. Even if a few parts have lost their original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate evolution, you need to show the development of completely new structures.Myth: The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear. All too often the propagandists for evolution present their story with statements such as, "Every knowing person believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst Mayr)
Reality: The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific theory, much less a fact.1. Alpha -Omega Institute is a non-profit education organization headed by Dave and Mary Jo Nutting. The Nuttings have MS degrees in mathematics, geology, and biology. This article is a condensation of their Dec. 93 "Think and Believe newsletter, available by calling (303)245-5906."
http://www.arky.org/museum/search/misc/eibomm.htmAccording to the National Association of Biology Teachers, http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/Documents/NABT.html which is an organization of science teachers, and which endorses the concept that following tenets of science, evolution and biology education are proper because:"The fossil record, which includes abundant transitional forms in diverse taxonomic groups, establishes extensive and comprehensive evidence for organic evolution."To be considered scientifically valid, this must be falsifiable. I contend that it is merely opinion based on assumption. If you believe that this is falsifiable, explain how any attempt at falsification would proceed."The model of punctuated equilibrium provides another account of the tempo of speciation in the fossil record of many lineages: it does not refute or overturn evolutionary theory, but instead adds to its scientific richness."Please explain how to proceed with the scientific method of attempted falsification of the theory of punctuated equilibrium."Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics: producing order from disorder is possible with the addition of energy, such as from the sun."Again, please explain how to proceed with the scientific method of attempted falsification of this claim, as well as the scientific tests, which must be repeatable, that have been performed showing order arising from chaos."Radiometric and other dating techniques, when used properly, are highly accurate means of establishing dates in the history of the planet and in the history of life."Right! And there is also an abundance of wonderful oceanfront property available for free in Arizona."The models and the subsequent outcomes of a scientific theory are not decided in advance, but can be, and often are, modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered."TRANSLATION: When any area of evolution is shown to be false, evolutionists must be quick to perform the re-interpretation waltz."Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not start with a conclusion, then refuse to change it, or acknowledge as valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion. Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of dogmatic proposals."ROTFLMAO! Sorry, but this statement is just too laughable to be taken seriously, at least where evoutionary thought is concerned."Providing a rational, coherent and scientific account of the taxonomic history and diversity of organisms requires inclusion of the mechanisms and principles of evolution. Similarly, effective teaching of cellular and molecular biology requires inclusion of evolution. Specific textbook chapters on evolution should be included in biology curricula, and evolution should be a recurrent theme throughout biology textbooks and courses."TRANSLATION: We must be allowed to begin the indoctrination of students at the earliest age possible with the ToE and we must be able to present the ToE as an established and fully accepted fact and the only viable explanation for the origin of the species."Teachers should respect diverse beliefs, but contrasting science with religion, such as belief in creationism, is not a role of science."This is one of evolutions major Tinman Arguments! True science is the pursuit of truth at all costs, regardless of where that truth might lead."Science and religion differ in significant ways that make it inappropriate to teach any of the different religious beliefs in the science classroom."TRANSLATION: No theory concerning the origin of life should be taught if that theory has any ties to the concept of an Intelligent Designer. The only religion that is acceptable to be taught in the science classes is the religion of Naturalism.The bottom line is that evolution is not true science, its reliance on untestable assumptions, coupled with speculative assertions and outlandish claims, reveal it to be what it has always been, and that is the religion of Naturalism, modernized for the 21st century mindset.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Meert:
".......Do you have any of your own arguments? Arguments that you've researched and can provide us with data? Data is convincing......."Speaking of data, and recognizing your desire for data from research, please be so kind as to supply us all with the research and data that you have done and accumulated. I am sure we would all appreciate to be informed of your latest discovery.Thanks,
Jet

Sorry Mark, but your post is little more than a rehash of material that has been rebutted and refuted so many times that to do so again would be a truly pointless endeavor. Your inability to grasp the enormity involved in the discussion of contrary perceptions of data and evidence from an highly intellectual point of view, coupled with your tremendous inability to engage in any sort of meaningful interlocution based upon the intellectual understanding of those scientists who are directly involved, not to mention your gross misunderstanding of the proper etiquette necessary for a productive intercourse and exchange of ideas, joined with your arbitrary dismissal of concepts that you obviously do not comprehend on the same level as the scientists who are engaged in the various fields of science, does make for a rather ordurous experience for anyone of an opposing view who may wish to engage you in discussion. Possessing a proclivity for verbosity is not necessarily a negative characteristic. I would, however, consider you the exception to the rule. Sorry!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Meert:
[B] JM: Sure, you can start here: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeertForgive my impatience, but rather than have me engage in a hunting expedition, perhaps you could point me directly to what area on the site contains your personal research and data. I saw maps, charts, etc. and one click led me to this statement.......The file /users/jmeert/cambrianc.jpg can not be located on this web server, but I didn't find your specific research and data with accompanying attributions. I would appreciate it if you would navigate for me!Thanks,
Jet

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LudvanB:
[B]Well then Jet...lets take another approach,shall we?1-Myth: The world was formed within 6 days by an invisible,intangible,mysterious God some 6000 years ago.***Provide the scriptural references that confirm this statement. Especially the part about "6000 years ago".***Fact: There is simply NO EVIDENCE whatsoever,of any kind imaginable that this was the case. There is nothing anywhere on this planet that can allow one to come to that conclusion...Hell,there isen't even any evidence that there actually IS a God...its purely a personal,spiritual choice for each individual to believe in God...meaning that since there is no evidence of God,people who dont believe in God like you or i CANNOT be faulted for it.***This is obviously a matter of perspective. For some, the mere existance of complex organisms is enough evidence to convince them that an Intelligent Designer is the only possible author of life. Your personal beliefs on the matter have significance only to you personally. Opinions are negated from one person to the next. Finally, if God is God, is He not able to find fault in you for any reason He chooses? Do you actually think you could enter into a debate with such a creature?***2-Myth:6000 years ago,God created two people in a heavenly garden who were effectively immortal until they ate an apple....then,their longevity dropped to ~900 years and those two people fathered the entired human race.***"Effectively Immortal" until they ate an "Apple"? I have never read anywhere in scripture where it says this. Please offer the scriptural references so that I may examine them.***Fact: Not only is there no single shred of evidence anywhere that there ever was an Adam and Eve but it is medicaly impossible for people to life for 9 centuries and 2 people do not possess the genetic diversity required to engender an entire race.***Not so long ago, it was medically impossible for someone to live for over an hundred years. Today, we see many people living that long. As for the genetic diversity angle, I am afraid that even some evolutionists would disagree with you there.***The characters of Adam and Eve come not from the hebrew but from an ancient Sumerian Myth,where the Gods(plural) created both Adam and his first wife Lilith AT THE SAME TIME from the dust of the earth. But in that story,Lilith would not submit to Adam's will as an obediant wife and left him for the company of Angels and Demons. Adam bitched about it to the Gods who then cursed Lilith,plunging her into the ocean and than fashionned a mild,obediant wife for Adam creating her from his rib to insure her devotion and called her Eve. The hebrew simply recycled that old legend,gave it a new twist,and Voila! we have the story of Genesis.***Interesting little tale. I would love to see your references on this little tale, along with the historical and physical evidence of it preceeding the Genesis story. What other cultures, if any, believed in this tale, and what sort of physical documentation is available?***3-Myth:At some point in the distant past,there was a water vapor/ice canopy around the earth,which disapeared at the Flood.Fact: The absurdity of this belief really confounds the mind and illustrates a clear ignorance in matters of astronomy and earth sciences. The fact is that any such bubble,weather is be water vapor or ice,would have been blown right off the planet by the solar winds in a matter of days,if not hours following the formation of the earth and appearance of the sun,since its not said to be part of the atmosphere but in fact is placed ABOVE the atmosphere by scripture,and thus,outside the protection of the ozone layers who break down the solar winds as they enter our atmosphere.***You got all that information from the scriptures? Reference the appropiate scriptures please. I would love to read them.***Furthermore,the whole water bubble theory is born of the scriptural description of a FIRMAMENT set to separate the waters below from the water above. What this argument fails to take into consideration is that in the context of the Bible,firmament meant "solid dome" in which the stars were "embeded".***Again, please provide scripture references, along with concordance references to confirm this interpretation.***This description is consistant with all other description of the world in the bible which illustrates clearly their belief that the world was in fact a small,immobile flat disk.***You should really be willing to supply us with all of the scriptural references, along with concordance corroboration, if you expect to be taken seriously when making these kinds of statements, not that it would really help when you make such outlandish statements as this. Sorry, but I assume that your canopy statement is made from pure ignorance concerning this subject. Even if one accepts the concept of a canopy or not, neither the existance or non-existance of such a canopy can be falsified without going back in time. The feasability of a canopy, and its' subsequent effect upon the environment and the species within, can be falsified, and there are attempts underway to do so at this time. But to make the bold assertion that you make, and to state it as an established fact, is to make the type of claims that gives evolution and evolutionists a reason to be ridiculed.***

If anyone needs to get serious here, it is you. Your polemic sermons of a wonderful fossil record that simply does not exist other than in your own mind, and your inordinate desire for someone to rebutt your nonsensical posts is cause for questionable concern. Either post something with some real substance or accept that you are hereby considered as irrelevant and incoherent as your previous posts have been.

Interesting use of his earlier statements as a refutation of his later statements. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:.......why on earth did you think you were posting anything original deserving of a reply in the first place?***Deserving of a reply? I don't recall ever making such a claim. I honestly could not care less if anyone chooses to reply to any of my posts. You choose to do so on your own and at the risk being labeled by me as just another nefandous proponent of that most unscientific of theories, which you refer to as Darwinian evolution!*** [QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:"Put up or shut up."***What number is that one on the forum guidelines list? I must have missed it!***

KING PENGUIN:
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko KusanagiBoy, that says it all!

As requested by Percy, this is a reposting from another thread.Well, let's take this point by point.
Point #1
Jet: There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.Mark: Yes there are. Tell me, what would you expect a reptile mammal transitional to look like?***Mark chooses to respond in a somewhat typical Evo fashion. Rather than give examples of transitionals and intermediates, followed by the references to the scientific tests performed that led to the scientific explanation of how these were determined to be so, followed by the scientific attempts at falsification of this data, etc., Mark simply says "yes there are" and then moves into a non'supportive question.***JetPoint #2
***Actually, Marks reply is well taken so my only response is in regard to what actually qualifies as evolution, IMHO. Micro is not debatable, but, as I have stated before, I do not classify it as evolution. I will expound on my reasons for this belief upon request. As for Macro, it is, as yet, unobserved and, IMHO, an unobservable event and therefore macro-evolution is completely untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific. Obviously, this is my personal opinion and I eagerly await the scientific data that can show me otherwise. Unless you are able to provide true science, with true scientific results, including all data from A to Z, you won't be able to convince me that it is scientific.***JetPoint #3
***Evos must disregard abiogenesis. They prefer, rather, to promote a theory that picks up somewhere after the beginning of life, rather than start at the very beginning. How convienent. Without the theory of abiogenesis, the TOE is nonexistant. But that doesn't seem to bother the Evos. At least with the creationists, you begin at the begnning, from before there was life on earth, to the moment that life came into existance. Evos are unable to give an explanation for life "evolving" from non-life, and so they must abandon the beginning in order to justify their acceptance of the TOE. Personally, I do not care to pick up a book and start my reading of it somewhere in the middle, ignoring the beginning chapters as if they were irrelevant to the entire story. Why Evos prefer to take this approach is beyond me, unless it is because they must do so in order for the TOE to be accepted.***JetPoints #4,5,6
Mark: How does this represent positive evidence that the ToE is false.***Did I read that correctly? OK, I'll just bite my lip, refrain from laughing, and move on to your next point.***JetMark: If there is no fossil evidence of hominid to human evolution, then this is positive evidence of what? No evidence disproves nothing.***So you contend that while no evidence disproves nothing, no evidence also proves the TOE? Beautiful! And Evos say Christians must have great faith to believe in creation and a Creator!***JetMark: Positive evidence please.***It is positive evidence that the TOE is not a scientific theory. It is positive evidence that those who champion the dogma of the TOE are willing to totally disregard true science in order to further their unbelieveably unscientific theory.***JetPoint #7
***Ah yes, the old NS argument. I have yet to see a coherent explanation of the definition of NS. How is it natural, aside from occurring in nature? What determining factors are necessary for the selection to occur, and what makes it natural apart from the existing nature of the creature/entity involved in the process. What power, or entity, controls the process of selection? Is it Nature? Environment? Chaos? Uniformity? Random Chance? Supposed Infinite Possibility? What? Explain how this is science. Reference the data from falsification attempts. Reference duplication data. Reference the scientists who performed these tests and where they were performed. Give the scientific definition of "Natural Selection" as well as the tests performed to validate this as true science. Define the properties incorporated within this theory that qualify it as a truly scientific theory and possibility.***JetPoint #8
***Obviously, it is not. I disagree with your opinion on this matter and you disagree with my opinion, and I can respect that. Agree to disagree. For further clarification, please refer to point #7.***JetPoint # 9
***And so we have the somewhat typical strategy of the Evos. See the evidence that the TOE is false and unscientific, reject the evidence, repeat the question that has already been answered, claiming that it has not been answered. Repeat the process as needed.***Jet*********************I have asked this before, but I shall ask it here again. Where is the raw scientific data showing the attempts made towards falsification of the TOE? I will request only five examples, for the convienence of the Evos.1. That man evolved from extremely lower forms of life.
2. That evolution has, is, and shall continue to happen.
3. That the estimated age of the earth is sufficient time for evolution to occur.
4. That life evolved continuously after abiogenesis occurred, experiencing occasional explosions of new life.
5. That despite the continual abandonment of the scientifc guidelines that it must adhere to, the TOE still qualifies as a true and falsifiable scientific theory.Falsification! I would love to see the many examples of scientific tests performed. If it is true science, this should be an easy task.[This is message #42, which is a reply to message #29 from the thread in Evolution versus Creationism / Is It Science? / A Christian (and creationist)'s condemnation of "Creation Science" (Page 3)]ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

Originally posted by Percipient:Jet: I have asked this before, but I shall ask it here again. Where is the raw scientific data showing the attempts made towards falsification of the TOE? I will request only five examples, for the convienence of the Evos.1. That man evolved from extremely lower forms of life.Percy: Morphological classifications based upon fossils and genetic similarity studies could have indicated that man and other living species are not at the top of a nested tree hierarchy. They instead confirmed that this view agrees with the data.***Not the raw scientific data I requested.***Jet: 2. That evolution has, is, and shall continue to happen.Examples of a few recently observed speciation events can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.***Again, not the raw scientific data I requested. I have stated this before. If a reference to the talkorigins site is the best that can be offered, a site that is widely recognized as one of the most biased and misleading sites when it comes to an honest presentation of all the facts concerning the ongoing controversy between evolution and creation, then offer nothing, which is what the talkorigins site is worth.***Jet: 3. That the estimated age of the earth is sufficient time for evolution to occur.Percy: In the late 19th century the paleontologists and geologists, who needed a timeframe of at least hundreds of millions of years, battled the physicists led by Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) who would grant no more than a 100 million years. That the battle was won by the paleontologists and geologists would be one piece of positive evidence since they received the time they felt they needed, and then some. I don't think anyone seriously questions whether a timeframe at least 45 times greater than that originally granted is sufficient.***Did my request for "raw scientific data" go unnoticed, or was it just conviently ignored?***Jet: 4. That life evolved continuously after abiogenesis occurred, experiencing occasional explosions of new life.Percy: Did you mean explosions of speciation? Anyway, the fossil record clearly indicates species coming into existence and then fading away with time.***Once again, no raw scientific data is offered.***Jet: 5. That despite the continual abandonment of the scientifc guidelines that it must adhere to, the TOE still qualifies as a true and falsifiable scientific theory.Percy: Need more information about how the ToE fails to follow the scientific method before I can comment.***Need the actual raw scientific data with references from accredited science institutes, along with the institutes informational material of falsification test results of the raw data, and the identity of the scientists involved in the research before I can offer more information. To some Evos, this may seem alot to ask for, but if the information is truly available, it should no problem to fulfill my request. Surely the knowledgeable Evos, those totally convinced of the accuracy of the TOE, are privy to this information. How about sharing it with the rest of us.*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

***Whether through a misunderstanding, or by mistaking me for someone else, you seem to be under the impression that I am a YEC. I am not. As for the information that was requested, your reply was less than satisfactory, to say the least. Highly technical or not, the information must still be available. Also, if the information is too technical for the average person to understand, then what is the basis of Evos belief in evolution? Is the reason they believe in evolution mired in the fact that they have simply been taught that evolution is the answer to an otherwise unanswerable naturalistic question, that being, where did man come from? Do Evos simply believe in evolution because a large number of unknown scientists have told them to? I do not expect an answer to these questions but I do still expect the more knowlegeable Evos to provide me with the information that I have already requested. To date, none of the Evos have been willing to, or perhaps able to, satisfy that request.*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei