Neither Evolution nor Creation are

The word "science" has an almost magical connotation to it. Whenever a theory is labelled "scientific" it carries an authority that cannot be denied by the common man. Consequently, those who oppose the "scientific theory" are considered ignorant and/or bugs to be squashed and ignored.According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "science" is defined as: "...A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain..."When considering this definition in the light of what is taught about Evolution one can readily see that Evolution is non-scientific. According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal (obviously such an "observation" is impossible!) Neither have evolutionists demonstrated that a single-celled animal has the ability to "create" a multi-celled animal.Waving "millions of years" and "natural selection" in someone's face does not answer the question. In order for evolution to be considered "scientific" it must show either observation or demonstration of its theory. Since "evolution" happened billions of years ago and happens over millions of years it fails the test of science."Creation Science" is a little bit better off than its rival. Presumably, God was there at the beginning of the Universe so His testimony of what happened would be authoritative. However, there are two uphill battes a "Creationist" must fight: 1) That God exists, and 2) That the Christian Holy Bible is a trustworthy message from God. Once these two are established argument over it being "scientific" can then commence.Why, then, do intelligent people "debate" about these things? Evolutionists who have established themselves as "scientists" have a very strong reason to maintain the illusion of science for their theory: Money. Awarding themselves PhD's and grants and prestigious positions in colleges and universities they have a very basic emotional link to protect and defend evolution from all critics.At least the "Creation Scientist" is following a more noble goal - that of declaring the glory of God in creation. Such men are usually subject to the whim of the evolutionist who have co-opted most, if not all, of the research funds and hold most of the seats of authority in education and science. Certainly, they cannot be criticizing evolution because they want to protect their own jobs!Robert

Ah! There it is. Just as I had predicted. I am now an ignornamus?Are you saying that Darwinism does not say that life started in the oceans 10 billion years ago with the first formation of single-celled animals in the primordial goo?In Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker" he point out that all that is necessary for evolution to occur is the first existence of life he does not even say what kind of life (actually hints at something more basic than single-celled animals).I must have missed something there?Robert

And how have I misrepresented Evolution?Robert

Greetings:Mark asks for an example of a Scientific theory? Einstein's General Relativity Theory.Gene wants me to be more clear about Evolutionary theory. OK. How does Evolution explain the jump from original single-celled animals in the primordial goo 10 billion years ago to multi-celled animsals. Can they (or you) demonstrate that such can happen? You say that there is an abundance of evidence for it - well? Show me!Schrafinator does not seem to comprehend that all of the biologists he is referring to would be out of a job if the theory of evolution was found to be false. He then compares their salaries to oddballs like Bakker, Schuller et all. I was hoping for a more intelligent response, because I was thinking of men who are in the science field like Russell Humphreys, or Michael Behe.Strange, that all of you who think you know so much cannot even respond intelligently to the most basic of questions: Where is your evidence that single-celled animals behave in a way that produces multi-celled animals?At the very beginning Evolution fails the test.Robert

Greetings:Mister Pamboli seems to think that I am demanding observational evidence in order to validate evolution as a science. I am not. If you re-read the definition of science that I gleaned from the Oxford English Dictionary then you will find that it says: "...observation or demonstration..." It is an either/or not necessarily a both/and proof. I think I pointed out that "observation is impossible" so I am asking for a demonstrated fact that validates evolutionary theory in its most basic premise.So my question still remains: Has evolution demonstrated that single-celled animals behave the way they have claimed to behave 10 billion years ago?Both Mr. Pamboli and Percipient comment on my "conspiracy theory" allegation. Though I never mentioned that it was a "conspiracy" such an action is just normal human behaviour. Clearly, biologists who have done their PhD's on evolutionary theory have a vested interest in "maintaining the status quo" so to speak. This is a problem with any group that has seized power in any type of situation: government, business, or science. Evolutionists have created their own type of fundamentalism.What got me thinking about this is the recent PBS series on Evolution. I noticed that little or no evidence was produced that scientifically (that is observation or demonstration) proved evolution. I also noticed that when it came to an opposing theory - like that of special creation - that their highly biased presentation seriously misrepresented so-called "Creationists". Evolutionists have truly created a fundamentalism all of their own.Apparently I am being labelled a "Creationist" here, but such is not the case. I do not believe many of the creationist teachings concerning the beginning and nature of the universe. I also do not believe evolution, and, I believe that evolution is far more harmful to science than creationism.Robert

Greetings:I thank you men for correcting various aspects of my position. If I do not answer all of your objections at once it is because I am on a limited timeframe. There seems to be some confusion here about details and I must admit it is my own fault.First, the number 10 billion was a number I used simply to make a point. Over the past 10 years I have heard many different ages for the universe. Back in the mid-80's Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos series, said that the universe was 100 billion years old. I have also heard others say that 10 billion is far too short a time for evolution to work. Be that as it may I will accept whatever timeframe you wish to make for the ages of the Earth and the universe. The timeframe is unimportant I am interested in knowing if there is any demonstrated proof for the theory of evolution.Schrafinator accuses me of dodging an issue, but the post he quotes does not seem to contradict what I have said. In fact, he says that I "have improved upon" my original statement about evolution (which he claims is erroneous). All he says is that my statement was erroneous. If he showed me why it was or if he in fact "corrected" my statement with one of his own, then I feel a reply is necessary. He then directs me to two different websites as "proof" that single-celled animals can become multt-celled animals. Here is a quote from one of them:Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.This is a rather self-serving statement nor is it true. Those alleles which are necessary for between species change are unable to change whereas those alleles which are capable of changing are not responsible for between species change. A dog, for example, whether it is a doberman or a schnauzer is still a dog. Evolutionists have not demonstrated that between species change is possible, nor have they shown any type of example where it has actually been accomplished.Darwin in the first chapter of his infamous book points out how powerful domestic variation has been in the hand of man: creating better race-horses, improving livestock, making more serviceable animals. There is even an example of this in the Bible (Genesis 30:41). Variation within a species is undeniable. Variation between species is impossible.A popular example among evolutionists today is how viruses change in response to drugs used to kill them. However, this is the same change as a doberman is to a schnauzer. Clearly, the two are radically different, but they are still the same species.The second post that schrafinator uses to "prove" evolution has been responsibly answered by creationists.I must again say that I appreciate all of your comments. That I have not been able to reply to all of them is simply a matter of limited time. I must also apologize for my "erroneous" statements about evolution. I can only remark on those things that I have learned in High School, College, and other sources concerning the theory of evolution. I would be more than happy to read a "correction" though rather than just told that my statement is wrong? I will then re=phrase my question in more appropriate language.Nevertheless, my question still remains unanswered: How does a single-celled animal "create" a multi-celled animal over time? Can you demonstrate this for me?Robert

Greetings:Mr. Pemboli has responded to me very graciously of which I thank him for his remarks.Yes, I agree that it is "cool" for someone to look up to you and respect your authority. However, such can be abused, and it is the abuse that is wrong.There are 5 definitions of "science" in the OED, and I use this particular definition because it is neutral and it is catagorical in its phraseology. More "modern" definitions of science tend to be biased in the sense of materialism. Since you do not quibble neither will I.I will have to take odds with you about this quote of yours:In the case of evolution a 'demonstrated truth' could well be the demonstrated relationship of species, the succession of forms over a time scale sufficient for their evolution...There are clearly similarities and differences between species. It is begging the question to say that because there are similarites between species that evolution must be true. The differences could be irreconcilable. As to the second part, the succession of forms is purely a biased reading of the fossil record. If, for example, one hundred years from now a scientist digs up the skelaton of the Elephant Man he could conclude that he has found a new species. Misreading the fossil record to "prove" evolution is symptomatic of a fundamentalist mindset: Nebraska Man, Neanderthal, and Lucy are classic examples."...physical laws governing genetic order..." woould be a good demonstration of evolution if such can be proved. So, again, I will rephrase my question:How can you genetically prove that a single-celled animal can become a multi-celled animal over time?Inferential logic used in other fields of science? Someone here accused me of misrepresenting communism though I have never mentioned it, but applying Darwinian logic to Political Science has had a devastating effect on government. Are you claiming that Social Darwinism is valid? If so, then Hitler's references to Evolution are legitimate? As well as Stalin? Mao? and Mussolini?I want to emphasize that I have never used Social Darwinism as a means of refuting Evolution, but your statements seem to indicate that evolution has some kind of responsibility in inciting some of the greatest buthers history has ever seen.I can see why you thought I was making a "conspiracy theory" argument. I must say that it was the farthest thing from my mind.Fundamentialism is more than taking a text literally. It is a closed mindset that only sees the world thought its rather limited set of presupposed values. There is also a narcissistic tendency to repudiate critics of those values as less than human. Evolutionists have defined "science" within their own limited values, thus, that which criticizes or disagrees with evolution is distinctly non-scientific.I can also see why you assumed that I was a creationist. I thought that my criticism of the position in my initial post would be clear enough.A noble person is one who strives for something outside of his own selfish ends. In seeking to serve God by submitting to the ridicule of their fellow scientists it seems that Creationists are serving a more noble goal. Evolutionists, on the other hand, seem only interested in defending the status quo. As I understand it there are many objections to evolution in the biological sciences, but many of these scientists are too afraid of being labelled "creationists" or "non-scientists" by their peers.CheersRobert

Greetings:Do we now have a new species of mules who can reproduce on their own? Your example does not fit your assertions concerning evolution.As to the other part I will look up my references and get back to you.Thanks againRobert

Greetings:A definition of evolution might clear the air a bit:Evolution is a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.You may agree/disagree with this definition but try to tell me why you disagree so we can have a decent dialog on the matter?As I have been taught by evolutionists in High School and College: this non-living matter (the primordial goo) created the first living cell(s). Somehow, from these first cells came the first multi-celled living organisms. That is the basis of my question: How did the first cells form multi-celled living organisms?Schrafinator claims that I do not answer all of her questions so I will endeavour to answer her questions first (sorry for the references to "he" please forgive my oversight!)Physicists did not lose their jobs because of Einstein? That is because Einstein's theory did not completely debunk Newtonian physics, but simply led it in a different direction. If someone came along and showed that Newton and Einstein were both wrong and that physics cannot explain the basic properties of the physical universe, then a lot of physicists would loose their jobs? No? I think that your naive views of human nature would break down at this point and the "scientists" would act in self-preservation. An example of this would be the recent PBS miniseries on Evolution. The highly-biased views of the producers and scientists involved were evident in the way they mangled the creationist arguments.Do most Biologists make a lot of money? Well, $50,000 to $80,000 a year is considered middle-class to upper middle-class. So, yes I think that they are very well-paid considering the work they do. By the way, Robert Schuler is a modernist and would hold to theistic evolution. He does not see a conflict between evolution and Christianity.I did not comment on your allegation that I have misrepresented evolution. I believe if you read the top part of this post that you will see that Evolution does "predict" or say that life began with single-celled animals "creating" or "giving birth" or whatever the process is to multi-celled animals.If you want me to reply to this then you will have to tell me why you think that, "Evolutionary theory does not predict that single celled organisms would give birth to a multi-celled animals." Are you stumbling over the word "birth"?You then say that I have not answered the following claim, "Now, considering that the ToE has (copious) positive evidence to support it..."The problem, Allison, is that I see no (copious) evidence for the Theory of Evolution. I am asking you for evidence which you are steadfastly denying me! So, I did not answer this because your very next statement actually gave me what I was looking for: you provided two websites that gave "evidence" for single-cell to multi-cell development. The first site you gave me provided no "evidence" but simply made a series of self-serving statements. The second was also responsibly replied to by creationists. Still, I am looking for evidence from you, and it seems you are evading the issue.Finally, Your quotation of Steve Allen is not very appropriate. There have been many scientists both Evolutionists and non-Evolutionist who are not creationists - as well as scientists who are creationists - who have harshly criticized evolutionary theory. Since I am going to quote many others later on I will give you one as an example:Evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury writes:Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls. A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4E1000 different forms. Using a little algebra we can see that 4E1000 = 10E600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure "1" followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.-Article entitled, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher.His point is that life is far too complex to be explained by the overly simplistic model that synthetic evolution provides.Here are facts, Allison, disproving Evolution! Where are all your high-minded scientists jumping around and congratulating him on his proof?Since Darwin many scientists have remained skeptical about the validity of evolution, and they have even occasionally voiced their opinions aloud. Your quotation of Steve Allen, Allison, could legitimately be applied to you - because you refuse to hear their voices!Now, I think I have answered all of your questions. If I have missed one, then kindly remind me and I will respond. Since I have done this curtesy for you would you please now answer my question?Robert

Greetings:In response to Gene I will reiterate the definition of evolution that I have given before:Evolution is a process whereby life arose from non-living matter, and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.I believe this is how Darwin used the word and it certainly agrees with what I was taught about evolution. If you would like to debate this definition, then I would be most happy to hear your counter-definition of evolution.As far as I am concerned I am interested in exactly how "evolution" would work to create multi-celled animals out of single-celled animals. Can you show me how this is done without waving the "magic-wand" of "Millions of years and natural selection"(what I call the "time" argument)?The Time argument from evolutionists sounds very much the equivalent of the creationist "in the beginning God". Whenever they are pressed to give evidence they hide behind the time argument: "Millions of years and Natural Selection..."Thanks!Robert

Greetings:In answer to your first point as to why these alleles cannot change I found the argument against change in the following article:John F. McDonald writes:The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those (genes) that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations.article found in "The Molecular Basis of Adaptation," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics Vol. 14, pg. 93.Insofar as your number 2 is concerned I would seriously suggest that a large amount of success is necessary for you to claim that horses and donkeys produce a new species. Since you point out that mules are not a species according to Darwinism, then I do not believe that your example proves your point.Also, horses and donkeys are put together by artificial selection not natural selection: they do not willingly mate. This fact also seems to be a flaw in your reasoning since Darwinism is concerned with natural selection.I am all eyes to read your replyRobert

Greetings:My last post was a reply to joz.Mark:I am glad to receive your kind response, and I can say that I mean no deliberate dishonesty in using the definition that I have used. However, I must disagree slightly with your post on the following ground.Given as a hypothesis to the scientific method I would heartily agree with you that the theory of evolution can be considered scientific. But, is that how the theory is treated by most scientists? The American Association for the Advancement of Science has come out and said that evolution is a fact. Such a statement has put it beyond the realm of a simple hypothesis. The PBS series that I have referred to before has also made such a statement. Dawkins and Gould - the men at the highest pinnacle of evolutionary thought - have also stated that evolution is a fact.In light of all of this I believe that the definition I use is not out of context, but a necessary test of evolutionary thought. In examining evolution from both "sides" (I think there are actually about 3 or 4 sides if you include non-creationists and theistic evolutionists as well) I have found evolution neither scientific nor factual.This conclusion comes from a former evolutionist who has unbiasedly read the arguments from all of the sides involved.Thank you for the clarification of your point. I hope I was as clear as you were.Robert

Greetings:Mark again!I am skeptical that macroevolution can be proved either by observation or demonstration in my lifetime since I have often been told that it takes millions of years for it to happen. However, I am openminded on this issue and would entertain any such proof you have to offer me.What I am really looking for is the actual process that a single-celled animal undergoes in order for it to "transmogrify" (if I can use a Calvin and Hobbes reference) into a multi-celled animal.I am looking forward to reading your replyRobert

Greetings:Hello Mr. Pamboli!Yes, any abuse of power: government, religious, or in the fields of science is wrong and tyrannical. I fully agree with you.I may be missing a bit about how you define "relationship of species": I do not think that such could be a demonstrated truth of evolution. A demonstrated truth, in my opinion, would be an actual showing of how the evolutionary process works without recourse to "millions of years and natural selection."I also agree with you that identifying the relationships between species in the fossil record is the issue. Since Apes, for example, hold a 97% similarity to humans it could follow that an evolutionist might uncover a fossilized ape and think he has found a pre-human transitional form. Nebraska Man, who was entered into the record as proof of evolution in the Scopes trial, was found to have been conjured up from a 20 year old dead pig!Much of the debate over the fossil record that I have read is based entirely on the subjective view of the scientist who is examining the evidence. The debate over Ambulocetus, for example, is characteristic of this inane arguing about something that existed long ago, cannot be observed swimming or walking about now, but is "obvious proof" of a transitional form. It is all in the interpretation, and interpretation is heavily influenced by one's own presuppositions.As I told Mark above: I do not have a problem if you consider evolution simply as a hypothesis to be proved. I have a problem when people try to shove it down my throat without providing proper reasons for doing such an act.I retract my statements concerning social darwinism and humbly beg your forgiveness.I would not say that they think their opponents "less than human" but to criticize someone as "non-scientific" simply because he/she disagrees with your theory is a part of the fundamentalistic mindset. I believe that evolutionists have shown such a mindset - including all the other characteristics I have pointed out earlier concerning fundamentalism - and I beleive that there is a form of evolutionary fundamentalism as well as religious fundamentalism.Alot of the arguing between evolutionists and creationists can be boiled down to this:Evolutionist: You are non-scientific
Creationist: You are an atheistThe difference is only in the phraseology.Thank youRobert

Greetings:Ah! yes - thank you Joz I understand your point now and I hope I did not frustrate you too much with my thickheadedness!"Recent" in evolutionary terms could be millions of years I guess. So I assume that there is no current evidence of where horse (A) and donkey (B) came from? Some missing link that has eluded evolutionists after 150 years of looking? Or, has this missing link been found?A lion and a tiger are both considered "cats". Yet a "Liger" is just as sterile as the mule. Close association producing (predominately)sterile offspring does not necesarily "prove" a "recent" branching off from one another. If they did produce a (predominately) fertile offspring then I would truly be amazed, and my respect for evolution would go up a notch.However, you cannot argue from possiblities when you are stating that evolution is a definite scientific fact.Again, sorry for my seeming dimwittedness.Robert