Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

"And that is one of the strong arguments for evolution. If we suddenly saw something new created, Creationists would win hands down. But until they can show Creation happening, they have no argument. Evolutionists can show evolution happening. Creationists have never been able to show Creation happening."I am new here, I will probably be posting more later, but it takes so long to read through these threads :-). I was just curious what evidence evolutionists have that can "show evolution happening."

"Not when they are buried under hundreds of feet of rock that could only have formed over millions of years."Just for the sake of playing the devil's advocate (I do not know enough about any of this stuff to argue with you people, I am mainly reading this mb for educational purposes), how could a bone that is several inches thick still be intact in the time that it would take for sediment to form a layer tall enough to cover it? You said millions of years, but even hundreds seems like it would be to many. This makes me think of all of the buffalo that were wiped out in the plains in the days of early America. Their bones are gone.Some people would say that the only explainable way for this to happen is through a universal catastrophe (ie. the Genesis flood).

So you're telling me that a few bones can lay around for hundreds or thousands of years and still remain whole? Wind and rain can wear holes in huge rocks, but these bones will just lay there undisturbed?The fact that it is not seemingly possible from a scientific or mathamatic perspective seems bigger to me than what you try to make it. I don't know the whole argument, which is why I was looking for a logical or even better, a scientific answer, not a criticism of the way I word things.Also, are you suggesting that every fossil that is found today is of a creature that stepped into some "soft soil?"This message has been edited by winston123180, 10-31-2004 11:25 PM

This is exactly my point. When has it been directly observed? I was looking for a specific example that I might be able to read up on.

Sure, I understand that. What I'm not missing is the fact that they would still have to be around and intact for the time that it would take for these things to happen.

I'm not a troll, but I"ve been called one on alot of boards. I am a twenty-three year old person who is trying to form a worldview. I grew up in public school, being taught evolution like it is undisputed fact, then I see people like Lee Strobel "Case for a Creator" and Jobe Martin "The Evolution of a Creationist" who dispute it. I like to read, and I try to read as much as I can from all opposing sides. I also like to pick the brains of people who seem to know what they are talking about, which is why I bring questions that I have to places like this. I guess the way that I come off sounds "trollish" but my intentions are otherwise, please believe me.

PS: If there's a better place for me to take this, let me know. I just read through this whole thread, and was posting a few questions that I had.

Sorry it's been a while, I'm in the middle of 19 credit hours and 2 jobs. I have this book called "The Evolution of a Creationist" by Jobe Martin, I heard him speak and got his book at that event, but I have not yet had the time to read the whole thing. Here is one example from his book that he gave in the seminar (this does, in fact have to do with the topic of bad science):Let us look at another of the marvels of God's creation - the giraffe. The giraffe had to be created as a fully functional and unique animal. A mature bull giraffe stands at about 18 feet tall. In order to pump blood up his long, skinny neck to his brain, the giraffe needs a powerful pump. His heart (pump) can be up to 2.5 feet long. It is so powerful that, as the animal bends its head down to satisfy its thirst, the blood pressure is more than enough to burst the blood vessels of its brain.

​

If evolution is true, then the giraffe is back to mindless, totally random accidental chance processes, occurring over long periods of time, to save its life and prevent it from blowing its brains out every time it bends its head down to get a drink of water. This evolution idea comes up short! Is evolution a progressive and miraculously intelligent process that, without a shred of intelligence, somehow realizes that an improvement or adaptation is needed and then sets out to design and manufacture the incredibly complex organic structure? And if the complex improvement does not show up in time, the animal is dead and extinct.

​

Even the extinct fossil animals have all the necessary parts to exist; they do not display a partially formed skeleton or fin or beak, etc. All fossil and living forms are fully functional and perfectly suited for their niche.

​

When might the giraffe know it needed to protect its brain from devastation of excessive blood pressure? It seems to me that it would not know until it had died of a brain hemorrhage while taking a cool drink. How can it "evolve" a protective mechanism, it it is no longer alive to do it?
The giraffe has a protective mechanism that was designed by our Creator. As the bull bends his head down for a drink, valves in the arteries in its neck begin to close. Blood beyond the last valve continues to move toward the brain. But instead of passing at high speed and pressing into the brain and damaging or destroying it, the last pump is shunted under the brain into a group of vessels similar to a sponge. This cluster of blood vessels is called the "rete mirabile." The brain is preserved as the powerful surge of oxygenated blood gently expands this "sponge" beneath it.

​

However, from this mechanism another problem arises. A lion creeps up and prepares to kill its spotted prey. The giraffe quickly raises its head and, without something to compensate for the reduced blood flow, passes out. It got up too fast, generating low blood pressure and diminished oxygen content in the brain. The lion eats a hearty meal, and the giraffe, were it alive, would realize that it had better evolve some mechanism to re-oxygenate its oxygen-deprived brain! We all know that animals that have been eaten by a lion don't evolve anything, even though evolutionists would have us believe that creatures evolve the necessary-for-life improvements, as they are needed for survival.

​

But the giraffe survives! The Creator designed it in such a way that as he begins to raise his head, the arterial valves open. The "sponge" squeezes its oxygenated blood into the brain; the veins going down the neck contain some valves, which close to help level out the blood pressure, and the giraffe can quickly be erect and running without passing out and becoming lion lunch. God made the giraffe just like it is with all systems complete and ready for any emergency. There is no way the giraffe could have evolved its special features slowly and gradually over long periods of time as evolution demands. The functional mechanisms of the giraffe demand God to be their Creator. Why not God as the Creator of everything?

​

Everyone agrees, creationists and evolutionists - a giraffe is a giraffe. It is a distinct species, a discrete entity. No one would say a giraffe is a "missing link" or a "transitional form." A giraffe is not some creature emerging from some other creature or changing into a "higher" or more complex animal - a giraffe is a giraffe! It can be scientifically examined with results that display the necessity of a single creative act. This long-necked creature had to have been originally formed with all of its complex features fully functional.

​

Every living organism must be fully functional and perfectly designed for its place in nature or it ceases to exist. Hearts, lungs, intestines, kidneys, brains, blood vessels, nerve pathways, eyes, skin, hair, feathers, scales, teeth, tongues, antlers, horns, reproduction abilities, etc., etc., etc., must all be in place and functioning in harmony or the life form dies! The same is true of cars. They must be designed and produced in such a way that the water pump, carburetor, fuel lines, battery, transmission, ignition switch, etc., are each working properly and in harmony with everything else or the car does not run. Everything must be there and be working from the beginning!

​

Someone might interject that the giraffe is a product of "survival of the fittest." Let's think about this survival of the fittest idea. Does it support evolution or does it fit creation? Suppose there were two bull giraffes and one female giraffe. The first bull giraffe is a happy, healthy, 100% bull giraffe. The second bull is evolving out of giraffe-hood so he is not quite fully and completely a giraffe anymore. These two bulls are going to fight, as animals do, to see which one gets the female giraffe. Which bull do you think is the fittest and will win the fight? Obviously the most giraffe-ish giraffe will proudly win the battle and the affection of the female. Survival of the fittest means that the fittest survive. This idea better fits the Biblical teaching that each life form is created according to its kind. The strongest of its kind survives.
Any typos are mine, I just typed this thing.

If there is any creature on earth that could not possibly have evolved, that creature is the Bombardier Beetle. It needed God to create it with all its systems fully functional. The study of this incredible insect has been going on for many years. IN 1928, authors C.L. Metcalf and R.L. Flint wrote: "The bombardier beetle, Brachinus, ejects an acrid fluid which is discharged with a distinct popping sound and a small cloud of vapor that looks like smoke from a minature cannon." More recently, Time Magazine reports:

​

...the bombardier (beetle) does nappear to be unique in the animal kingdom. Its defense system is extraordinarily intricate, a cross between tear gas and a tommy gun. When the beetle senses danger, it internally mixes enzymes contained in one body chamber with concentrated solutions of some rather harmless compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, confined to a second chamber. This generates a noxious spray of caustic benzoquinones, which explosed from its body at a boiling 212 degrees Farenheit. What is more, the fluid is pumped through twin rear nozzles, which can be rotated, like a B-17's gun turret, to hit a hungry ant or frog with bull's eye accuracy.

​

You might wonder how an evolutionist might explain this marvelous insect. Evolutionist Mark Isaak writes:

​

Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by evolution. Their features, behaviors and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates. Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution.

​

How does evolution, a mindless, undirected, purposeless, random chance process "create?" As Jewish scholar, Dr. Lee Spetner writes:

​

Randomness is an essential feature of NDT [neo-Darwinian theory]. There is no known physical or chemical mechanism to generate heritable variations that will improve adaptivity or increase the complexity of living organisms. The neo-Darwinians, therefore, had to choose randomness to produce the variations they need. In this way they hoped that, through the direction afforded by natural selection, they could describe an evolutionary process that could account for a natural origin and development of life. The neo-Darwinians have rejected nonrandomness as the major feature of variation.

​

Evolutionary theory has big problems when attempting to explain the existence and complexity of bombardier beetle by means of random, chance happenings. Each stage in the evolution of its special chemicals would have led to its destruction. This one-half inch insect mixes chemicals that violently react to produce something similar to an explosion. How could the bombardier beetle have evolved such a complex means of defense without killing itself in the process? This problem has the members of the evolutionary establishment scratching their heads. Evolutionary theory says that you lose it if you don't use it. But, how do you use it unless you have it in completed and in fully functional form?

​

We have two options then. One is to believe that a mindless, random, chance process brought into existence exactly what would be essential for the creature to maintain life and defend itslef. The other option is that God, in his sovereign wisdom, designed and created precisely what was needed for the welfare of the creature and encoded the information in its genes. With godless evolution, a new enzyme or chemical or organ or fin or beak or bone will have to randomly, mindlessly, unexplainably evolve until the creature gains its new improvement. As creationists, we would say that God created it just like it is, a discreet, fully functional little bug with an incredibly complex defense mechanism.

​

The bombardier beetle is irreducibly complex. Remember back in fourth grade when we reduced fractions down until they could be reduced no farther? This beetle cannot be reduced! If it doesn't have all its parts, it can't defend itself or, even worse, it could blow itself up. Naturally, it could not evolve after it blew itself up and was dead, so how did it get here? The evolutionists might say, "Mother nature, beneficial mutations, natural selection and time did it." Creationists would say, "God did it." (By the way, what or who is "Mother Nature" who does all these miraculous things?)

​

To prevent its own destruction, the little bug manufactures a chemical, called an inhibitor, and mixes it in with the reactive chemicals. But with the inhibitor, it would not be able to use the expulsion of hot, burning liquid and gases to discourage its enemies. A spider would eat it because the beetle has no solution to exploit to protect itself. Again, we have a dead beetle. Dead bugs cannot evolve the next chemical needed to release the protective reaction. That chemical turns out to be an anti-inhibitor. When the anti-inhibitor is added to other chemicals, an explosive reaction does occur and the beetle is able to defend itself.

​

There is still another problem, however. The beetle must have an especially tough "combustion chamber." That chamber must have an outlet for the violent reaction to release its energy or once again, we have a dead bug. Problem solved: this unique creature has the necessary equipment, including twin-tail tubes to "exhaust" its defensive reaction. These tubes can be aimed at enemies in a 180 degree arc from straight to the rear, to directly toward the front. Amazingly, it does not shoot friendly creatures but only its enemies! How does a one-half inch long insect know how to aim at and shoot potential enemies?

​

When the little bug shoots its cannons (and it can shoot either side individually or both sides together) all we hear with our human ears is a "pop." But it is not just a single pop. It is a series of sequential pops that sequence so fast we only hear one "pop." If it was just one big POP, it would be like lighting the after-burners on a jet engine and the diminutive creature would blow itself out of the picture. But with a sequential pop it can hang on with its little legs and remain in place! Incredible!

​

How did its incredibly complex nervous system and advanced chemical system evolve? There is nothing exactly like bombardier beetles in the entire animal kingdom. Is this an example of the "impersonal, plus time, plus chance" or is it an examble of special, intricate creation by a God who is intimately involved with His creatures? Which system of belief can best explain the marvelous bombardier beetle: Evolution or Creation?

It's not really from a website. It's from the book that I quoted just a few books above that one, just adding to it.

Martin, Jobe The Evolution of a Creationist (Biblical Discipleship Publishers: Rockwall, TX), 39-42.
(Giraffe reference - pgs. 131-134). ISBN - 0-9643665-0-9I am a pretty fast typer (like 104 wpm last time I had to take a test). Typing that much isn't a big deal.

More from the same source (pgs. 159-161).One of God's amazing creations is the deap-sea Angler fish. This fish makes its home more than a mile deep in the ocean water. On her forehead the female has a "fishing rod" tipped with an "artificial worm." She dangles this "bait" over her mouth to attract her next meal. Ah, but there is a problem -- her next meal annot see th ebait, since it is too dark under more than a mile of seawater. Starvation sets in while she waits for her first deep-sea fish dinner. At last, she realizes, "I must do something about this darkness problem." But alas, it is too late. She is dead and dead fish can not evolve the adaptations needed to rectify deadly problems, even though evolution says that, given enough time, mindless, random chance processes will evolve whatever her situation (or environment) tells her is needed to survive. It may not be logical to some, but it seems to me that she would get mighty hungry waiting perhaps hundreds of years for her first meal.

​

The only possibility is that God created the Angler fish with all the fully-functional equipment it needed to survive at great depths. To solve the darkness problem, God created a special kind of light on the bait. This light displays highly advanced technology -- it gives off no heat! A compound called Luciferin is oxidized with the help of an enzyme that scientists named Luciferase, and this reaction produces heatless light. (Research scientists have broken down Luciferase into more than 1,000 proteins, but they still do not know how the heatless light is produced. Someone someday may figure out how God made this heatless light. Need I say that they will join the ranks of the righ and famous?)

​

Ask an evolutionist how a deep-sea fish could evolve the ability to produce high-tech light on an artificial bait dangled over the fish's mouth? God made His creation to display His glory and power. No one could look at the Angler fish and say it is the result of the "impersonal plus time plus chance," unless that person had already decided to refuse to believe in the God of the Bible (Romans 1). The vain speculations of macroevolution lead to foolish thinking and impossible conclusions.

​

Naturally, the Angler fish needs to reproduce and has a special way of doing this. In the darkness of the deep, it is difficult for th emaile and female to find each other. God designed the eggs of the female so that they float up through a mile of ocean to the surface. On the ocean surface, the eggs form a jellylike mass and then hatch. The young fish, male and female, grow and mature in the surface waters. At a certain point in their development, the male finds a female and bites and holds on to her abdomen. Soon the tissues of the female grow into and attach to the mouth tissues of the male, and the female drops to the bottom of the ocean carrying her parasite male with her, not to separate "'til death do they part." He found her in the light of the surface waters, so he does not have to grope around in the dark of the deep looking for a mate. How could all of this evolve when it is so ultra-specialized and unique? Why does the female not chase the male away when he biter her abdomen? What possible evolutionary mechanism enables the male's circulatory system to merge with the female's? And from what creature did this peculiar fish evolve? Evolution has no answers.

​

A major difference between the Angler fish and other fish is the Angler's lack of a swim bladder, which is an air sac to provide buoyancy and to prevent sinking. If it had evolved without an air bladder, it would sink and die. If it had an air bladder and had evolved the bait and light in surface waters, it would be easy prey for other predators and "survival of the fittest" would force it into extinction. Another feature of the deep sea Angler is its special body, which is designed to prevent crushing. A pressure of over 2,000 pounds per square inch is exerted on the body of the fish at one mile deep. It survives this great pressure with no problem. ON the other hand, if the first Anglers were surface fish and lost their air bladders, (through let's say, some unexplainable genetic mutation) and then sank to the bottom of the sea, they would have been crushed. Dead animals don't evolve any further.

​

The deep-sea Angler had to have been created with all its special equippment fully functional. God says that as we study His creation, it should cause our thoughts to focus on the Creator, give Him thanks, and honor Him as God (Rom1).

Sure :-)Wow, didn't realize the text was available online, heh could have saved a little time.This message has been edited by winston123180, 11-08-2004 10:05 PM

I can try to answer crash and to be more critical, the problem is that I don't really know what I"m talking about, which, if the things I've posted are so obviously wrong, should be evident. My goal was to see what people who believe in evolution woudl say about it. I am in no intellectual position to debate, just inquire. I hope that's okay.

Thanks, pink. I was pretty sure that by coming to a site like this, the arguments that I've read would be crushed, but since most people here want to debate I think I should just remain as a "lurker" until I am done with classes and have time to research.