i do believe in evolution... it has some science behind it, it's not a random threory that someone thought of it does have a basis, with room for speculation of course. But it's pretty well based

 

 

and sure, i believe that there are aliens that are more intelligent than us- i dont think saying "how come they arent here?" is a reason to say they arent out there. The universe is just way to big for them to have arrived. I mean, the closest star to the solar system is 3 or 4 light years away. And who says there's life there? Who could get to us? And even if aliens traveled through galaxies, the universe is sooo big with soooo many planets and stars. What are the chances they'd get to us?

 

Thats what most people think, evolution is backed by science but alot of scientist have done alot of research into it and science disproves it. So people have been suckered into popular science thinking its popular so its right, but when alot of scientist did alot of research they found alot of things to disprove it.

 

One day evolution will go the way of things like people thinking the earth was flat, or earth being the center of the universe, as more science comes out to disprove it.

 

Well if the universe is infinate and life did exist out there, it would exist everywhere, wouldnt it? In our Galaxy and others.

 

Evolution is stone age thinking.

yea... it definetly exsists in the milky way other than us. There are thousands of billions of stars in the milky way. One is 10 stars is like the sun- it has planets around it. And in every system there could be 1 or 2 planets that are in a distance where water is liqued so life could be possible...

 

and about evolution, what have u heard that disproves it?

It's still a theory, but if it were just popular science that has been disproved wouldnt theu stop teaching it so thorouly in schools?

yea... it definetly exsists in the milky way other than us. There are thousands of billions of stars in the milky way. One is 10 stars is like the sun- it has planets around it. And in every system there could be 1 or 2 planets that are in a distance where water is liqued so life could be possible...

 

and about evolution, what have u heard that disproves it?

It's still a theory, but if it were just popular science that has been disproved wouldnt theu stop teaching it so thorouly in schools?

 

I can post a lot of science stuff later on tonight to disprove it

So, what have you heard against avolution? i think it's the most reliable thing ive ever heard up to date. Obviously, there are lots of things that haven't been discovered about the subject yet , but that doesnt mean it wont be posible to find an answer to them one day...

The "Geologic Succession Of Strata" Is False!

 

First, there is no place on earth where the entire geologic succession of strata can be found. Obviously, the concept of the earth's sedimentary rocks being found in orderly form, from most ancient to most recent is impossible to begin with. Where did the rocks come from? Rocks are either sedimentary (water deposited), metamorphic (formed by changes caused by faulting, pressure, and so-on) or igneous (volcanic). Since there are no fossils in igneous rocks, and since there are virtually no fossils in metamorphic rocks, scientists are limited to investigating the water-borne deposits, such as various kinds of marbles, sandstone, limestone and shale, to establish an age for the strata.

 

The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is. As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data; facts — evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock; whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories.

 

True science always alters a given theory to admit proven facts. Not so with evolution. To illustrate this point, let's get right to one of the most poignant, and embarrassing, proofs. An important one is the ridiculous attempt by geologists to claim that whenever the fossils are "out of order" according to their "geologic succession of strata," there is something wrong with the ROCKS! Perhaps, they say in many cases, the rocks are UPSIDE DOWN!

 

When you walk into your bedroom and see the bed made, you probably suppose your wife spread the sheet on the bed prior to the cover, and the cover prior to the bedspread. She would look a little silly putting the bedspread on first, and then burrowing beneath it, attempting to spread the sheet. If she had done so, out of caprice, there would probably be evidence pointing to the fact, for it would be virtually impossible to do a neat job unless she once again straightened the bedspread.

 

When you view layers of rock, as exposed in highway cuts, canyons (like the Grand Canyon of Arizona) and river banks, and you see massive layers, sometimes twenty, thirty feet thick, seemingly as smooth and cohesive as if they had been mixed in a blender, lying conformably atop each other in orderly succession, it is logical to assume the layers on the bottom (if no evidence of faulting, such as tilted, folded, or fractured strata: isoclines, synclines, etc., is present) were deposited first; then the ones immediately above them, and, lastly, the layer on the top.

 

You would be quite correct, of course. However, evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so-called "younger" strata are often found BENEATH so-called "older" strata. When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away arrangement of millions of tons of rocks miles upon miles of rocks, where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes "upside down." Not that they are really "upside down," please note, but that it appears "older" fossils are found in rocks above "younger" fossils, when these "older" fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed! Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists! If they ADMIT what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the "geologic succession of strata" is WRONG; admitting that the supposed younger fossils DID NOT EVOLVE from supposed older, simpler ones!

 

But such an admission would be DISASTROUS to evolutionists!

 

Presto! Forget the evidence. Claim the rocks are "upside down!" Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils! Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant is standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesn't mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!

 

What kind of force would be required to superimpose massive layers of rock, weighing millions of tons, atop other layers? Why, the kind of forces which caused mountain-building; overthrusts, isoclines, synclines and geosynclines. When one sees twisted, tilted, and folded strata, which is clearly visible throughout the Swiss Alps, many other major mountain ranges, and in highway cuts in Southern California, one is seeing evidence of massive earthquakes on a scale never experienced in the history of mankind. Whenever a "younger" layer of rock is allegedly found beneath an "older" layer of rock, there is inescapable physical evidence which demonstrates how such an unusual phenomenon could have occurred. And, to be sure, there ARE cases where such things can and do occur. Such vast movement of massive regions of land would cause grinding, crushing destruction of the rocks closest to the moving layers, reforming them into "metamorphic" rocks, destroying most fossils. Certainly, there could not have survived such delicate fossil forms as worm tracks, ferns and leafs, ripple marks, and the like. Even a layman could look at two layers of rock, and determine if "slickensides," the polished rocks formed at the place where faulting and slippage of the rocks occurred, is present. But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so-called "older" fossils, and the stratum containing the so-called "younger" fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them?

 

Obviously, they were deposited just as you view them. Therefore, the assertions that the fossils below other fossils are younger than the fossils atop them--perhaps by countless millions of years--is simply false. Though evolutionists may claim they are somehow "out of order," or that we are viewing "deceptive conformity," we are actually seeing the fossils in their respective layers of rock reposing in the exact order in which they were deposited.

 

You and I know that when mud is deposited by flooding, then gradually hardens, it begins to crack. Then, it erodes. Animals walk about upon it. Wind blows. Summer storms come along. In other words, any deposits of alluvial soil, slowly drying as the water which carried it there recedes, will show obvious evidence of the passage of time. Especially when that time is assumed to be measured in the millions or even billions of years!

 

When any two layers containing so-called "upside down" fossils record are lying perfectly, smoothly, uninterruptedly together, as if the tide of mud which had deposited the bottom layer had no sooner receded when another flow of different mud, containing different forms of life, came from another direction and was deposited immediately, it is obvious that the evolutionists have made a serious error in their dating theories. The rocks are not in error. Evolutionists are. When one cannot even slip a thin knife between two smoothly-mixed layers of sandstone; when there is absolutely no evidence of any erosion, or overthrust faulting (which would crush the rock, grind it, metamorphose it, and cause a completely different kind of rock structure), then one must assume the rocks were deposited exactly as they appear — the older on the bottom, and the younger on the top, like your sheet and bedspread.

 

Of course, what you are looking at when you see such strata piled atop each other so uniformly is in itself evidence of a massive catastrophe; floods on unimaginable scale which held vast amounts of silts and muds in dissolution, and which came flowing over the recently-deposited mud of a previous tide. That huge amounts of the rocks in the earth's surface were deposited suddenly is anathema to evolutionists, for they detest the word "catastrophism," a word which means much of the geologic formations on the earth were the result of gigantic catastrophes, such as huge floods, giant earthquakes, and the unimaginable movement of the tectonic plates.

 

Evolutionists simply will not admit that different layers of strata, containing vastly different species, could have lived contemporaneously. Once having insisted that their supposed "geologic succession of strata" is correct, they stolidly refuse to alter the theory to suit the facts.

"Finally, the Scientists have decided enough's enough. They are sick of the sheer stupidity running rampant regarding evolution. It's simply not good Science and preaching this lie in movies and all over the media as well as in Schools is making the Scientists look bad"

 

So my ignorant friend, ill use science to prove bad science wrong.....quite a modern way to look at things.

 

Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field

 

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1, 400 years. In practical application its strength 20, 000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

 

Radio Halos

 

 

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

 

 

HUMAN ARTIFACTS THROUGHOUT THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN

 

Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

 

Helium content in Earth's Atmosphere

 

Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10, 000 years.

 

I love this one

 

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60, 000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4, 478, 296 .17

 

The Human Brain

 

 

The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50, 000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans – all without knowing they are doing so.

 

 

Genetics is Not Evolution’s Friend

 

 

 

Some words you need to know

 

1. Genome – the total genetic structure of a species or kind or its gene pool.

2. Mutation – a mistake in the copying of the DNA, can be caused by radiation, or chemicals.

3. Recombination – the genetic mixing in sexual or asexual reproduction

4. Gene – the stuff of life, the sequence of amino acids in the double helix of DNA

5. Allele – variants of genes in the Genome that are for the same structure but that express a characteristic differently, such as brown eyes vs. blue eyes.

6. Taxon – Category in classification such as species, phylum.

7. Phylogeny – The (supposed) evolutionary history or family tree of a species or other group.

 

 

 

As we stated before evolution depends on beneficial mutation, natural selection and enormous amount of time for it to occur. Therefore we will now look at genetics and see if this is true.

 

 

 

But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.

 

 

 

“EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM, FOR (probably not) THE LAST TIME. Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety.” From a debate on talkorigins.org

 

 

 

Ummm a little double talk. Well it also appears this is perilously close to evolution being an intelligent designer. But it is also a tautology or circular reasoning to say that “evolution causes random mutation” because evolutionists say random mutation causes evolution.

 

 

 

But to correct, evolution is a religious philosophy that operates with a lot of faith. So evolution isn’t necessarily any more random than the person’s thoughts and it certainly cannot be some kind of force driving the random mutation. Nor can it cause mutations random or otherwise.

 

 

 

But mutation and natural selection is the engine of evolution. Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution will have lost its’ power.

 

 

 

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning. Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Mendel is the father of modern genetics and Darwin is the father of evolution. In Darwin’s day genetics was just starting and Darwin knew really very little about how genetics worked. His idea of change in species was based on erroneous and untested ideas of inheritance. Mendel’s ideas were based on careful experimentation and showed that individual characteristics were surprisingly resilient and constant.

 

 

 

Darwin believed in the idea that variations caused by environment could be inherited. Thus the giraffe’s long neck was a result the “inherited effects of the increased use of parts”. The Origin of Species, 6th ed, London 1902, p 278. Darwin believed that if parent giraffes strained their necks to reach the top leaves then the progeny would inherit longer necks. While even evolutionists today would see this a patently false, they still accept the apparent ease the change in the genetic structure it represents and throw that change to the magic of mutation. It wasn’t until much later that mutations were used as the change agent in evolution because it became apparent this idea of Darwin didn’t work.

 

But in reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one. I will explain why in a bit. First the types of mutations:

 

1. Duplication or Amplification of a segment of DNA

2. Inversion of a segment of DNA

3. Deletion of a segment of DNA

4. Insertion of a segment of DNA

5. Transposition of a segment of DNA from one place to another.

6. Point Mutation of a single nucleotide.

 

The first five are interesting genetic processes. Each is a complex and precise process that have much biochemical signaling and purpose. We don’t really know much about why the genes do this as we are still very weak in our knowledge of how our genome really works. But none of these processes can add any data to the genome, they just move data around. I must add another point here and some evolutionists place recombination in this list, but recombination is sexual mixing and once again cannot add any data to the genome. Recombination just takes the genome and mixes what is there. There are tens of maybe hundreds or trillions of combinations in our genome to recombine. We are wonderfully and fearfully made.

 

The type of mutations called point mutations are the only genetic process that can actually add information to the genome and that is why evolutionists have chosen point mutations as the mutational driver of evolution. We will hereafter call point mutations simply mutations to simplify the writing.

 

 

 

Was Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution?

 

 

 

What does happen in a population as the genome reacts to the environment? Darwin looks at the finches on the Galapagos Islands and notices variations in beak size. He thought that the harder seed in the dry time was causing the beaks of the finches to grow stouter from the use of the part. But, what was happening was that natural selection or a long term drought in the islands was causing the seed cases to harden. The heavier beaked finch allele in the in the genome was favored and the lighter beaked finch allele was not. The heavier beaked finch became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles. The heavy beak was not the result of a mutation! It was already an allele in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced. This is microevolution at its best. But there was no change in the genome of the finch and certainly no new species has arisen from this. The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the alleles and causing the phenotype to show its wonderful God given types.

 

What About Mutations?

 

 

 

But what about mutations then, what are they and how can they be beneficial? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10, 000 to 100, 000 copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a compare – correct process that is very efficient in fact it is 1016 better than the best computer code, but once every 1, 000, 000, 000 or 10, 000, 000, 000 copies a mutation “gets out” so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a mistake in 50, 000, 000 pages of typescript. You see mutations are predominately bad and the cell tries to make sure they don’t happen.

 

The Neo-Darwinists made random mutations the engine of evolution. They claim that many very small mutations are the basis of the “goo to you” hypothesis of evolution. For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.

 

1. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.

2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.

 

To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare

 

The smallness of the point mutation is also in question. Dawkins seems to think that the mutation can be as small as needed to make the hypothesis work, but it appears that one nucleotide base is as small as you can get. So a positive mutation cannot add but a single bit of information to the genome or one nucleotide’s worth. But is that enough? And if that truly does occur will natural selection grab and go with it?

 

You can find alot more evidence at this site

 

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:

 

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

2. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

 

Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:

 

1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -

For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.

2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -

We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.

3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -

Some the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules.

4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -

Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.

5. LIVING CELL -

And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.

 

When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they ever happened. To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps. An artist's conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and then jumping to self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very misleading.

 

Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for granted by the popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery to evolutionary scientists.

 

Origin of Life: the Early Atmosphere

Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. For example, iron is oxidized to form iron oxide or rust.

 

The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.

 

Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. This departs from the usual evolutionary theorizing where a uniformistic view is held (i.e. where processes remain constant over vast stretches of time). In this case the present is NOT the key to the past.

 

Instead, they propose a "reducing" (called thus because of the chemical reactions) atmosphere which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor. Newer schemes exclude ammonia and methane.

 

There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):

 

Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!

Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!

 

In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T).

Fossil Record Overview - Missing Transitional Forms

A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.

 

If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.

 

The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record.

 

Consider...

 

The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat's principle and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.

 

Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises... when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.

 

Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.

 

Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.

 

Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.

 

Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).

Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.

 

Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.

 

The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day.

 

And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.

 

The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.

 

Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.

 

In summary, instead of getting a phylogenetic "tree" in the fossil record, you get vertical patterns indicative of creation, conflicting with the notions of gradual evolution and supporting the creationist position.

While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility.

 

Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves.

David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

 

 

Evolution has occurred over billions and billions of years

 

Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

 

“If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it. In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That's why even though some people who aren't educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simple don't believe it anymore.”

Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin

 

 

The Earth is billions and billions of years old.

 

If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth cannot be billions of years old. Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are:

 

Continental erosion

 

Sea floor sediments

 

Salinity of the oceans

 

Helium in the atmosphere

 

Carbon 14 in the atmosphere

 

Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

 

The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.

 

The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurement of these rocks show them to be millions of years old too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

 

 

 

"There should be millions of transitional forms between the species. Where are they? If the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years as they say, there should be millions of skeletons. Where are they? The idea of a time-scale and any evolutionary sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record. And that''s the facts!"

"Many highly qualified scientists today reject evolution. In the USA alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists who dont believe in it"

I love this one

 

 

"New evidence emerges repeatedly that is devastating to evolutionary hypotheses, none of this finds it way into your head, why not? E.g. Dinosaur bones that are not fossilised have been discovered - proving they cannot be millions of years old. Dinosaur blood cells discovered - blood cells cannot survive millions of years [There''s many other examples]. Since Darwin the history of science is fill of fake discoveries that promised the missing link but never delivered [Consider E. Haeckel]. Numerous claims of "clear evidence" of evolution yet all failed under examination. Remember "Pithecanthropus Erectus" - "Heidelberg Man" - "Lucy" - "Neandlberg Man" - "Pitdown Man" - "Little Foot" - "Swanscombe" - "Hisperopithectus" - "Hesperopithecus" or "Zinjanthropus"? [all fake and there''s others]. Many claims from evolutionist are from paleontologists who spend their lives picking-up fragments of bones, skulls and jaws bones. They have a strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments and you fall for it every-time. Paleontologists want so hard to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions and our inability to even imagine and construct functional intermediates is a continual problem for evolution."

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong

 

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Evolution, whether sudden, (punctuational), or gradual,(Darwinian), would require an appearance of life from non-life forms. Yet, is this possible? Spontaneous generation has never been observed. This was proved by Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister in the 1800's when we discovered germs. Life only appears when life already existed. This is called the Law of Biogenesis.

 

Another way to approach this argument is to refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin stated it this way: " There is no natural process, the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this means that energy will turn to a state of entropy, one of less complexity and greater disorder along with a lack of usefulness unless acted on by an outside force that is directing this energy by means of an ordered arrangement that controls this energy in a useful way. Therefore, the amount of useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately, the amount of energy available would be zero. Due to this fact, it must be understood that the natural state of any natural system is one of disorder unless acted upon by an outside force in an intelligent, constructive manner. Any system left to itself will begin to degenerate. If you clean your room, it will get dirty again. Any life form alive today will eventually die. Chemical compounds left to themselves will break down into their parent atoms. Energy that is directed into these systems in an intelligent manner can cause greater complexity in the organism, yet when the intelligent influx of energy is removed, the system will begin to deteriorate immediately.

 

Evolution would require that through random, chance processes, inorganic materials would gather in such a way to create organic materials capable of replicating themselves. This process would require immense amounts of time in order to occur, and not only time, but protection against destructive forces acting on the material that was to become life.

 

This process is the reverse of what we know as fact as far as the 2nd law of thermodynamics is concerned. Naturalistic evolution requires that through known, proven physical laws atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial ordered arrangements all by chance, and all without intelligent ordering of energy or information causing the change. Over the long periods of time necessary for evolution to occur, these early chance chemical combinations would be bombarded by cosmic rays, radioactive enough to destroy whatever is exposed. This raw energy is absolutely useless to these early chemicals because they have no means to process this energy in any meaningful way. Photosynthesis may be how plants process sunlight, but we're talking about a time before even the first cell; after all, plants have genetic information that programs certain cells in them in how to process this incoming light. Our first primordial cell would have no such mechanism built in yet to process ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, evolution cannot have occurred.

 

If by chance this pre-organic material formed on the surface of the earth, it would still find it impossible to become a life form for two reasons. Before the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere, cosmic rays would destroy all life forms on the planet, for it is oxygen that is Ozone, O3. If there was an oxygen atmosphere, which might produce ozone, then oxidation would occur and destroy whatever is floating around. These forces would be the most important factors on whether life would evolve here.

 

If a life form did evolve, it would have to evolve with many existing functions the first time. A life form needs a mouth, a digestive system, a method of locomotion, and reproductive organs. Just examining the extreme complexity of these mechanisms should stop the argument here, but lets keep going.

 

With who would this life form mate? This first living form would need to be asexual or have a mate, which was it? What is the proof of either? Asexuality itself demands a complex system of operation, a complex series of commands to initiate. Since we are talking about the first life form, it had to be asexual unless you also want to believe that not only did a life form evolve from inorganic material, but it’s mate simultaneously evolved right alongside, right at the same time, in the same conditions, with completely compatible organic operation.

 

What did it eat? Think, not only did this life form need a mechanism of ingesting material to be processed as energy, but that material had to be nearby. How could all these internal organs evolve by chance? Think, not only the internal organs evolved, but so did the nerve system that controls these organs along with the organism's brain along with the intelligence to operate these organs in a manner that allowed the organism to survive. If you don’t believe that was necessary, then you must also believe that some chemical process happened by chance that processed whatever came down the life form’s ‘mouth’ in a manner that was compatible with the organism. What happens to this energy while being digested? We call this excess material waste, and it is poisonous. How was this waste removed from the organism? How did this organism not only evolve with a mouth, but also with a method of releasing waste?

 

How did it survive in it's primitive surroundings? How did any intelligent information get to these important functional systems in a manner that was beneficial to the organism? What type of brain and nervous system evolves by chance? How did something as complex as the eye happen by chance? If the organism didn't have eyes, how did it know when to open it's mouth when it was time to eat? How did hunger pains evolve?

 

All of these things speak of intelligence. Without designed and coded information, a life form is useless. The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by intelligent information and commands that do not reside in the atoms and molecules of these chemicals. A dead body is dead; WHY? It has all the chemicals necessary to support life already existing in a complete form with nothing missing, right?

 

Let's suppose this life did survive. Mendels’ law of genetics prove that variation can occur within a species, but cannot create a new species across phylum boundaries. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, such as the large muscles of a weightlifter to his son. Natural selection cannot create new genes, it can only select from existing gene information nation. Dogs remain dogs, and cats remain cats.

 

Mutations are now the only possible explanation for evolution, yet rarely has any mutation been Proven to be beneficial to any organism in its natural environment. Almost all observed mutations are harmful and many are fatal.. There is no known mutation that has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than any of its ancestors.

 

Over 80 years of fruit fly experiments involving 3000 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.

 

What causes variation and change in life? DNA. DNA stores enough information to fill 1000 books, each with 500 pages of fine print. Even the DNA of a small bacterium is composed of 3 million units all aligned in a very precise meaningful sequence. It is a mathematical impossibility for a random chance arrangement of molecules to arrange itself in the form of a DNA helix.

 

According to Dr. John Grebe, "The 15000 or more atoms of the individual sub-assemblies of a single DNA molecule, if left to chance as required by the evolutionary theory, would go together in any of the 10^87, (10 followed by 87 zeroes), different ways. It is like throwing 15000 pairs of dice at one time to determine what specific molecule to make; and to test each one for the survival of the fittest until the one out of 10^87 different possibilities is proven by survival of the fittest is proven to be the right one."

 

Evolutionists claim the universe is 10 to 20 Billion years old. There is less than 10^17 seconds in 20 billion years. Even by a trial and error combination occurring every second from the beginning of time till now, there is still no hope.

 

Mathematician I. L. Cohen says, "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between evolutionists and creationists should have come to a screeching halt. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."

 

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

 

Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle agrees with creationists on this point. He said the odds that a cell is formed by chance is equal to the odds that a tornado going through a junkyard would create a working 747 with all instruments working. Science has discovered no proof that animals or plants can evolve. The best established facts of genetics, biology, and botany studies indicate evolution is physically impossible.

 

Let's turn to the origin of man, and specifically, the fossil record of ‘Man’. Many people believe we have ‘proof’ of evolution through the fossil record, yet is this true? What is the facts surrounding fossils that are presumed to portray man?

 

Ramapithicus, often pictured as walking erect, has been degrade to the status of extinct ape. It's teeth and dental characteristics are similar to the gelada gibbon.(Richard Leaky/Roger Lewin Origins P.68). It has also been declared to be part of orangutan lineage.(Science News Vol 121 #5 Jan 30, 1982 P.84)

 

Australopithecine: not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. ”The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)

 

Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz:( Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, “Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40

 

Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, “Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)

 

Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's. Evidence included skulls and a few limb bones, but were lost during W.W.II. Clear evidence at the same site showed true man along with a 30 ft. deep ash pile and a limestone mine. All of the skulls of Sianthropus were broken in the same manner as those of monkeys who are eaten for their brains.(Ian Taylor, "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the World Order", Toronto Canada, TFE pub. 1984 p. 234-241

 

Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap and a femur that was dug up a year later and 50 feet away. The finder, Eugene Dubois, admitted the skull cap was from a gibbon like ape.(Eugene Dubois, “On the gibbon like appearance of Pithecanthropus Erectus", Koniklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Vol 38 Amsterdam Koninklijke Akademie 1935 P.578)

 

Nebraska Man was a local fossil, the entire evidence consisting of a single tooth. Nebraska Man was pictured on the front page of Life magazine in a hunter-gatherer mode. During the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, Nebraska Man was labeled a genuine missing link. The tooth turned out to be a tooth of a pig. (Henry Fairfield Osborne, Hesperopithicus Haroldcookii, the first anthropoid primate found in North America, Science Vol 60 #1427 May 3, 1922 P.463)(William K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus apparently not ape or man" Science Vol 66 #17209 Dec 16, 1927)

 

Piltdown Man, a deliberate hoax some blame on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, had people fooled for years and even had its picture on Life Magazine.(Joseph Wiener "The Piltdown Forgery" London Oxford U. Press)

 

Neanderthal Man was found in Neanderthal Valley in West Germany. Long accepted as a missing link, Neanderthal man has been proven to be human, very similar to Europeans today, yet with proven diseases such as rickets, syphilis, and arthritis.(Carl Hodge "Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told" The Arizona Republic Vol 99 #186 P. B-5)

 

There is no proof that man evolved from an ape like creature. In fact, many fossils of man have been found, dated to coincide with the ages of these extinct apes:

 

Petralona Man, found in a stalagmite 700 thousand years old.(Current Anthropology Vol 22 #3 June 1981 P.287)

 

Human Jawbone found in China in Yangtze River dated 2 million years old.(Java Man is only 500 thousand)(Mesa Tribune Mesa Arizona Nov 20 1988)

 

Also, there are some findings that contradict all known science:

 

Human skeleton found 1. 6 million years old, by Richard Leaky( Wash. Post Oct 19, 1984)

 

Evolutionists themselves disagree on just what the fossils mean and just how old they are. Consider the following:

 

RUINED FAMILY TREE: "either we toss out this [skull 11470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million year old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S.B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged to an orderly sequence of evolutionary change." NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, June 1973, p.819

 

HUMAN BRAIN: "Leakey further describes the whole shape of the brain case [skull 11470] as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the heavy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bone characteristics of Homo Erectus." SCIENCE NEWS, April 3, 1972, p. 324

 

"OLD" MODERN MAN: Louis Leakey, "In 1933 I published on a small fragment of jaw we call Homo Kanamens 1s, and I said categorically that this is not a near-man or ape, this is a true member of genus Homo. There were stone tools with it too. The age was probably around 2.5 to 3 million years. It was promptly put upon a shelf by my colleagues, except for two of them. The rest said it must be placed in a "suspense account". Now, 36 years later, we have proved I was right." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.156

 

THE OLDEST MAN: "[African footprints]... they belonged to the genus Homo (or true man), rather than to man-apes (like Australopithecus, who was once thought to be the forerunner of Man but is now regarded as a possible evolutionary dead end)... they were 3.35 to 3.75 million years old... they would, in Mary Leakey's words, be people 'not unlike ourselves'" TIME, Nov. 10, 1975, p.93

 

TOO HUMAN TOO OLD: Russell H Tuttle, Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Affiliate Scientist, Primate Research Center, Emory University, "In sum, the 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern Humans... If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus... in any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind..." NATURAL HISTORY, March 1990, p. 64

Human footprints, dated 3.75 million years old at Latolil (Nature Vol28 #5702 Mar 22.1979, P.317-323)

 

MODERN AND TALL: Richard Leakey, "... the boy from Tukana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age... he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo Erectus to contradict a long held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia," NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, Nov. 1985, p. 629

 

MAN EVEN BEFORE "LUCY": Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC, "...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi, existed at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile Australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern Humans at four and a half million years..." AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May 1979, p.274

 

HENRY M. MCHENRY, U of C, DAVIS, "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo Sapiens..." SCIENCE, Vol. 190, p.28

 

WILLIAM HOWELLS, HARVARD, "With a date of about 4.4 million years, [KP 2711] could not be distinguished from Homo Sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson or myself in 1967 (or by much searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at the time, time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element." HOMO ERECTUS, 1981, pp. 79-80

 

What do evolutionists and other well respected scientists say about evolution? Evolutionists themselves disagree, and those with scientific backgrounds often deny the evidence of evolution. Consider these sources:

 

The Dissidents No less an authority than the world-renowned paleontologist (with Dr. Colin Patterson) for the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. N. Etheridge, has remarked: "Nine tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, their is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (quoted by Lindsay Gordon, Evolution - The Incredible Hoax, 1977)

 

Sir Ernest Chain, 1945 Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin, in D.T. Rosevear's Scientists critical of Evolution, July 1980, p.4: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."

 

Dr. Werner von Braun, one of the leading scientists in NASA's Apollo project (many of you interested in space exploration know the name), wrote the following in a letter to the California State Board of Education, September 14, 1972: "To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?... We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life, and man in the science classroom, It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance."

 

Dr. Pierre P. Grasse, editor of the twenty-eight volumes of "Traite de Zoologie" and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences is considered to be the most distinguished of French zoologists. His conclusions? "The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism." (The Evolution of Living Organisms)

 

P. Lemoine, a president of the Geologic Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, has concluded: "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate.... It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible." (Introduction: De L'Evolution? in 5 Encyclopedie Francaise)

 

Dr. Hubert P. Yockey, A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis bt Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1977, Vol. 67, p.398: "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

 

Dr. Derek V. Ager, Geologist, Imperial College, London, Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, 1976, pp.132 - 133: "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked."

 

Dr. Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, evolutionist, concludes his 1986 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, thus: "Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.... The truth is that despite the prestige of evolutionary theory and the tremendous intellectual effort directed towards reducing living systems to the confines of Darwinian thought, nature refuses to be imprisoned. The "mystery of mysteries" - the origin of new beings on earth - is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle".

 

Finally, the aforementioned Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, remarked in a 1981 lecture at the American Museum of Natural History: "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing... that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not be taught in high school."

 

Have there been any strange findings that disagree with evolutionary thought about how old mankind is?

 

Gold Chains found in coal.(Morrisonville Times, Morrisonville M Jun 11 1891)

 

Metal bell shaped vessel found in solid rock.(Scientific American Vol7 June 1851 P 298-299)

 

Another important topic is the age of the earth. Is the earth billions of years old? The earth's magnetic field was measured accurately since 1835. Since 1835 the earth's magnetic field has decreased by 6%. Physicist Dr. Thomas Bames concluded that the half life for the magnetic field was 830 to 1400 years. That means that 830 to 1400 years ago, the magnetic field was twice as strong as it is today. Another 831 to 1400 years before that, it was 4 times as strong.

 

According to Dr. Bames," If we went back about 10,000 years, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as the field in a magnetic star. A magnetic star is like our sun: it has a nuclear power source. Surely our Earth never had a nuclear power source like the sun. Surely our earth never had a magnetic field stronger than a star. That would limit the age of the earth to 10,000 years. Science could definitely say, from the greatest physical evidence,(the kind of evidence and physics that we design radar sets with, and communication sets with), that the earth's magnetic field cannot be more than about 6 to 15 thousand years old." Thomas Bames, The Earth a young Planet? Films for Christ Assoc.)

 

Another topic would be population growth. There have been estimates of population growth as high as 2% per year. Assuming that population grows at only .5% per year, it would take only 4000 years to achieve today's population beginning from a single couple. Many creationists feel that Noah's flood was about 4000 years ago, so this fits creation theory quite nicely. If the Earth is as old as evolutionists claim, and the population grew at .5%, in a million years there would be lOE2100 people! Even if it took a million years to get at our present population, there would have been about 3,000,000,000,000 people before us! Where is the fossil evidence? Where is the cultural evidence?

 

Another topic is space dust, or debris left over from creation or impacts of meteors or comets. If the Earth or the Moon were as old as evolutionists say, there should be plentiful amounts of dust on the Moon that could have been, measured when we landed there. NASA even put large saucer shaped pads on the LEM so that it would not sink into the soil.

Biochemistry is not Evolution’s Friend

 

 

 

Words you may need to know.

 

1. Biogenesis – A term in biology that states the life only descends from life.

2. Spontaneous Generation – The belief that life can come spontaneously from non-life. Many in Darwin’s day believed that bacteria would just appear from non-life in a water cask. Today we know this is not true.

3. Law of Mass Action – Chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from the highest to lowest concentration.

4. Polymerization – Linking together of organic molecules to make bigger molecules.

5. Chirality – The ‘handedness of life molecules. Nearly all amino acids are ‘left-handed’ and nucleic acids, starch, glycogen, etc. contain sugars that are all ‘right-handed.

 

Chirality diagram

 

Chirality

 

 

6. Homochirality – All having the same handedness

 

7. Heterochirality – Having a mixture of handedness, also called “racemic”.

 

8. Enantiomers – Having a 50/50 mixture of handedness, or having mirror image oppositeness.

 

 

 

You remember the warm little pond of Darwin? Well it didn’t exist and neither did the primal soup we are supposed to come from. You see these ideas have terrible problems in coming up with the proper compounds to produce life. You remember my parameters in the statistics section above, I allowed there to be plenty of substrate compounds available to see if we could actually randomly organize them into a self-replicating molecule and found we couldn’t. Well in looking at evolutionists ideas of the primitive atmosphere we will put some more nails in the Evolution coffin.

 

 

 

Primitive Atmospheres

 

 

 

What do the evolutionists need in a primitive atmosphere to have life generate from non-life. Remember if we cannot do this step the rest of Evolution is kind of moot. Mutations and natural selection don’t work on non-life chemicals.

 

 

 

Evolutionists tell us our planet was spun of from some kind of collision, or was some kind of rocky collapse or something spun out of the sun. Pick your favorite. And they say the earth was molten for millions and millions of years. This should have sterilized the early earth of just about anything organic. So where did the organic substances come from. Evolutionists believe they came from spontaneous generation maybe, or maybe outer space! We’ll just see if any of these make any sense.

 

 

 

Some evolutionists say that amino acids just formed out of seawater. If they did then mass action would have wiped them out. Richard E. Dickerson said:

 

 

 

“It is therefore hard to see how polymerization could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization rather than polymerization.” Richard E. Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution and the Origen of Life.” Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75

 

 

 

Another problem with the primitive atmosphere is the presence of oxygen. Oxygen would destroy much of the organic compounds so the evolutionists came up with a reducing atmosphere or one without O2 and with CH4 as the main carbon carrier.

 

 

 

The trouble with this primitive atmosphere concept is that once life did occur, the reducing atmosphere would kill it as life needs oxygen. Evolutionists try to say that plants produced the oxygen, but plants need oxygen for respiration. There would have to been a very rapid change from reducing to oxidizing atmosphere once life appeared for life to have occurred in this manner. There is no mechanism or process that could do that quickly. The current plant oxygenizing of the atmosphere today couldn’t do that in less than 5000 years. Primitive life would not have even the capability as there wouldn’t be nearly as many of the plants in the brand new world.

 

 

 

Harold Urey admitted “that the non-oxygen atmosphere is just an assumption – a flight of imagination – in a effort to accommodate the theory.”

 

Harold Urey, “On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life,” in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 38, 1952, p. 352

 

 

 

Stanley Miller, who was a pioneer in the laboratory synthesis of non-living amino acids in bottles created in a reducing atmosphere, said that the theory that the earth once had no oxygen is just “speculation”.

 

Stanley Miller, “Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Conditions,” in Journal of the American Chemical society, 7, 1955, p. 2351.

 

A recent Scientific American summary article on the origin of life admits that:

 

* The classic ‘chicken and egg’ problem of ‘which came first, protein or DNA’ (since both need each other to reproduce) has not been solved by the 1980s idea of ‘self-reproducing’ RNA, as many textbooks imply. This is because the laboratory simulations are highly artificial with a ‘great deal of help from the scientists’.

* Stanley Miller’s classic 1953 synthesis of life’s ‘building blocks’ in the test tube, as well as Sydney Fox’s ‘proteinoids’ (which produced circular blobs claimed to be ‘protocells’) are now largely regarded as dead ends.

* Cleverly designed artificial self-reproducing molecules have no relevance to the origin of life.

* Highly speculative ideas about life’s beginning on clay, floating in from outer space, forming on the surface of fool’s gold, in mid-ocean vents, and so forth, are just that. Stanley Miller, who is now a chemistry professor still leading in this area, himself says, ‘I come up with a dozen ideas a day, and I usually discard the whole dozen.’

* The chairman of a recent National Academy of Sciences committee reviewing all origin-of-life research (which concluded that ‘much more research is needed’), stated that ‘the simplest bacterium is so [expletive] complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened.’

 

Do they then consider that the supernatural or miraculous (that is, creation) could have been involved? Not at all, says Stanley Miller. ‘I think we just haven’t learnt the right tricks yet.’

 

John Horgan, ‘Trends in Evolution: In the Beginning…’, Scientific American, February 1991, p. 100-109.

 

The Problem of Chirality

 

Now let us look at the problem of Chirality or handedness of organic compounds. Many important molecules of life exist in two forms. These two forms are non-supreimposable mirror images of each other. Nearly all biological life requires the biological polymers to be homochiral or the same handedness. That would be no problem of they could be produced chemically that way, but chemically there are produced in a racemic mixture, or with a mixture of both handedness.

 

 

 

“Synthesis of chiral compounds from achiral reagents always yields the ‘racemic modification’ and ‘Optically inactive reagents yield optically inactive products’”

 

Morrison, R.T. and Boyd R.N., 1987. Organic Chemistry, 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon Inc. p. 150.

 

 

 

So if the organic compounds were formed somehow in a primitive atmosphere they would be racemic. And that would present some major problems in polymerization of complex organic compounds such as large proteins, RNA, DNA etc. A wrong handed amino acid would cause the stopping of the polymerization of the more complex compound and effectively kill the process. Random organization of complex organic compounds would be drastically effected for the worse. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA, RNA and in the metabolic pathways are ‘right-handed’.

 

 

 

Another problem with Chirality is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of amino acid racemization dating method. This method is not very reliable because of the variables such as temperature and pH and the particular amino acid. Racemization is a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis for it shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life. This presents enormous problems for chemical evolution ideas as well.

 

 

 

Chirality can have tragic consequences. Thalidomide was prescribed in the early 60’s for women suffering from morning sickness. The left-handed form is a powerful tranquillizer, but the right-handed form can disrupt fetal development, resulting in the severe birth defects. The synthesis of the drug produced a racemate, as would be expected, but the wrong homochiral was not removed before the drug was marketed.

 

 

 

Evolutionists had no idea how Chirality came about in the biochemistry of the origin of life and to date have no real answer to the severe problems it represents in their postulate.

 

 

 

They have come up with some ideas that all are weak and I will list them here but not go into depth. If you want to know more, just e-mail me and I will explain whey these cannot explain Chirality.

 

 

 

1. Circularly polarized ultraviolet light

1. Will destroy the correct form as well, but not at the rate of the other form.

2. Requires a very narrow band of CP light.

2. Beta Decay and the weak force

1. Weak force is not strong enough to have the effect needed to create Homochirality.

2. Could not produce the L-enantiomer in a necessary significant excess.

3. Optically active quartz powders.

1. While quartz crystals are hexagonal and dissymmetric they are also racemic in nature and would not eliminate the homochiral organics

2. All experiments failed to prove this could be the reason for life’s needs for homochiral compounds.

4. Clay minerals.

1. The chiral selection of clay minerals that was reported now appears to have been an artifact of the technique used. This has been rejected.

5. Fluke seeding

1. Postulated that a fluke seeding of a supersaturated solution with a homochiral crystal would crystallize out the same enantiomer.

2. If the primal soup existed it would be extremely diluted and grossly contaminated.

3. The growing homochiral crystal would be immersed in the solution of the wrong remaining enantiomer and would not do anything.

6. Homochiral template

1. Proposed that a homochiral polymer arose by chance (wonder what the odds?) and acted as a template.

2. “But the opposite enantiomer acts as a chain terminator in the polymerization of chains and posses a severe problem in origin of life postulates.” Joyce, G.F., Visser, G.M., VanBoeckel, C.A.A., VanBoom, J.H., Orgel, L.E. and van Westrenen, J., 1984. Chiral selection in poly©-directed synthesis of oligo(G). Nature, 310:602-4.

7. Transfer RNA’s selected the right enantiomer.

1. Russell Doolittle, professor of Biochemistry at USC San Diego, and an atheist said: “From the start of their (Transfer RNA syntheases) existence, they probably bound only L-Amino Acids. Doolittle, R., 1983. Probability and the origin of life. In: Godfrey, L.R., ed., 1983. Scientists Confront Creationism, W.W. Norton, NY.

2. This is mere hand waving by this professor who lost a debate to Duane Gish. He never explains how such complicated enzymes could have functioned unless they themselves were homochiral, or how they would operate before RNA was composed of homochiral ribose.

8. Magnetic Fields

1. German scientists led by Eberhard Breitmaier of the Institute for Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Gerhard – Domagk – Strasse in Bonn, reported that a very strong magnetic field produced 98% homochiral products from achiral reagents. Bradley, D., 1994. A new twist in the tale of nature’s asymmetry. Science, 264:908.

2. No one could reproduce the experiment and it was found that one of the team, Guido Zadel, the post-doctoral fellow on whose the thesis the original work was based, had adulterated the reagents with a homochiral additive. Clery, D., and Bradley, D., 1994. Underhanded ‘breakthrough’ revealed. Science, 265:21.

 

 

 

Outer Space?

 

So with all the problems on earth of creating even the substances out of which life could occur scientists looked to space. There has been much hoopla where scientists zapped impure ice, supposedly matching interstellar compositions with ultraviolet light and forming amino acids. The ice contained a high amount of ammonia, methanol and hydrogen cyanide. This study was published in Nature on 28th of March 2002.

 

 

 

The paper said in part:

 

 

 

“How life originated is one of the earliest and most intriguing for humanity. Early experiments on the processing of a gas mixture simulating the primitive earth conditions assumed a reducing atmosphere with methane as the carbon containing molecule. Several amino acids were formed under these conditions as the products of spark discharge, photoprocessing or heat. It is now believed, however, that the Earth’s early atmosphere was rather non-reducing, with CO2 as the main carbon carrier. Processing of these alternative gas mixtures under experimental conditions leads to the formation of, at most, traces of amino acids.”

 

 

 

People, let me translate for you. What they are saying is this: “All our best guesses about how life started on earth are busted. But, we by faith believe in evolution so we must look to space as the place where life chemistry started.”

 

 

 

If is couldn’t start here, what makes them think it started out there?

 

 

 

God Bless each of you who are believers and may God use you in spreading the truth. Remember to treat with love and kindness those who differ from you.

 

 

 

 

 

Reason Number 4

 

Information Theory is not Evolution’s Friend

 

 

 

Information is the stuff of life. We see it every day in multiple ways. This paper is complex information. There are 26 letters, spaces, periods, commas, etc. all arranged (hopefully more correct than not!) to give out information. This did not come from random chance and no one would even begin to think so. That is unless one was an evolutionist.

 

 

 

Here is a quote from another amateur evolutionist. The quote is really about entropy which we will look at in the next section, but has some interesting stuff on information we can look at here.

 

 

 

“. . . However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in non-living systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightening are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?”

 

 

 

We won’t discuss the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this section but in the next. Right now we want to look at the nature in information that is given in the example above and compare it to biological information and see if the analogy given is valid.

 

 

 

Complex Life Information verses Simple Information

 

 

 

What we have here is a misunderstanding of what is true complex information and what is just information. What the amateur evolutionists above is looking at is simple information inherent in the laws of physics. We will look at snowflakes and stalactites first because they are both crystallization scenarios that evolutionists like to use. They also like to use salt crystallization from a warm salt laden fluid too. The crystal is not complex and it repeated over and over. If you break a crystal into two pieces you have two crystals. Crystal’s information would look something like this:

 

 

 

Abcabcabcabcabcabc

 

 

 

Where the life polymer would look like this”

 

 

 

The purpose of life is to love the Lord

 

 

 

If you break this apart you will lose the meaning and if you break apart the life polymer you will not have a smaller protein, you will destroy the protein.

 

 

 

Another issue is the crystallization is a process inherent in the substances them selves when the right environment occurs. There is no information given them to do this and they are very poor in information themselves. To try and say that this information as complex as DNA is absurd. They are waving their hands and bluffing in this.

 

 

 

Now if you saw a doily on the ground that was crocheted into a snowflake design you would instantly know some intelligence made it because you inherently know that the cotton fibers do not have a physical propensity to form that way no matter what the physical characteristics of their environment.

 

 

 

Graded river beds and sand dunes are just the remnants of the action of wind and water, the grading and dunes are because a certain velocity of wind or water will only carry particles of a certain size and down. As the wind or water velocity varies so to the particle sizes and thus you have a grading of particles. Extremely low complexity in these two examples. Just physics in action I’m afraid.

 

 

 

But if you saw 500,000 sand particles all lined up in a row you would suspect intelligent design, because wind can carve and grade a dune but it won’t line up the particles.

 

 

 

Now we can look at tornadoes and lightening. Wow, some people who experienced a tornado might not consider them so orderly. But all that aside they are much like the other examples as just particles obeying the laws of physics. Differential high and low pressure systems, caused by heat, moisture etc. These systems are more complex than the last two but still no cigar as to overall complexity and nowhere remotely near the complexity of a single small chain of amino acids.

 

 

 

This order from disorder is a chimera for there is only physical nature obeying the physical laws. In fact the non-theist physicist Paul Davies admits: “There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing.”

 

 

 

Specified Complexity

 

 

 

What is important here is the difference from “order” and information. Information is “specific complexity”. Specific complexity is needed to drive life, order is just interesting phenomena.

 

 

 

Information in the printed page is not in the paper nor the ink, but in the pattern of the characters and in the mind that understands and made them. Information in sound is not in the sound waves themselves nor in the storage devices, but in the modulation and words understood by the mind understands and made them.

 

 

 

Information in all living things is encoded in a kind of book called DNA. This information describes the complexity of a sequence and it doesn’t depend on the matter in the sequence. As in the above concepts the DNA molecule also appears to be understood by our cells and have been made by a higher intelligence that can ‘read’ the message as well as ‘create’ the message.

 

 

 

The DNA in one cell can carry the information of 3-4 30 copy volumes of encyclopedia Britannia. DNA is the most information dense medium known to man. The number of paperback books that could be stored in the DNA that would fit on the head of a pin is equivalent to a stack of books 500 times taller than the distance to the moon and each with unique and specific content. This information so overshadows the poor information in crystals, sand piles and weather systems that I cannot understand how anyone could think that this order sprang out of non-living disorder.

 

 

 

For an in-depth look at information theory and creation go here.

 

 

 

Rich specific information to create all the life we see today is what evolutionists try to say came from non-life. We will see in the next section that the laws of physics also dictate that this won’t work.

 

 

 

God Bless you all in all you do, in all your going in and going out.

 

 

 

 

 

Reason Number 5

 

Physics is not Evolution’s Friend

 

 

 

Much has been said of the laws of Thermodynamics in creationist literature and evolutionist literature, and it has been misunderstood by both sides.

 

 

 

Let’s look again at the quote from the amateur evolutionist and see what he is saying on this topic

 

“Simply incorrect science (creationist view that entropy is valid in an open system as well) Life is not a closed system. I quote from talkorigins.org

 

“However they (creationists) neglect the fact that life in not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more useable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect the next generation of tomato plants have more useable energy still? Creationists try to get around this by claiming that the information carried on my living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in non-living systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightening are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?”

 

 

 

The Laws of Thermodynamics

 

 

 

Thermodynamics

 

1st law – Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Also called the law of conservation.

 

2nd law – Matter and energy tend to disorder and less useable energy. Also called the law of entropy.

 

 

 

There are other ways to understand the 2nd law with is the one the most argument is about.

 

 

 

Classical Thermodynamics

 

The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.

 

 

 

Statistical Thermodynamics

 

The organized complexity (order) of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random (disorder).

 

 

 

Informational Thermodynamics

 

The information conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete.

 

 

 

Now let us look at the different types of systems as the person in the quote discussed an open verses a closed system.

 

 

 

Types of systems

 

 

 

* Isolated System – Exchanges neither energy not matter with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe could be considered an isolated system and is running down.

* Closed System – Exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case the 2nd law is stated: the total entropy of the system and its surroundings never decrease.

* Open System – Exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings. For an open system the law is stated: the total entropy of the system and its surroundings will never decrease.

 

 

 

Many evolutionists say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to open systems but that is simply not true.

 

Dr. John Ross of Harvard University states:

 

. . . there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. . . There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that that the second law fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, July 27, 1980, p. 40;

 

 

 

Now what we have in our open system is a tendency for energy to be lost as heat and for organized matter to be come disorganized. That is not to say that entropy reversals are not possible and do happen. The total entropy for the system must increase so for every decrease in entropy there must be a concomitant increase somewhere else.

 

 

 

In the examples in the above quote we can see this very well. When water freezes, heat as entropy gain is released. The same happens in the calcium carbonate in the stalactite. Graded river beds reduce velocity is streams and dunes reduce velocity of the wind. Storms release heat energy and create disorder and increase entropy.

 

 

 

The tomato plant is another order of specified complexity because it is life and has life chemistry driving it. The DNA in the seed has all the information to create the plant and that process is a temporary entropy reversal as suggested above. It is not getting ‘around’ the topic that creationists say this, it is true.

 

 

 

But can we expect continuing energy increases in the tomato plants in succeeding generations. That is questionable at best. I assume the useable energy is the fruit of the plant, tomato. Tomatoes are highly hybridized plants and the seeds may not be fertile (that old loss of information when information is changed) but we can experiment with this idea. Take some seeds from the tomato plant and propagate them. Follow this down several generations and what you will end up with is a very sorry plant with very little fruit. Entropy rules over all. You will need to get hybridized seedlings or seeds to get those yummy tomatos back and no you cannot get more energy every generation. That is a little exuberant misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

Evolution is all flash and no bang. It looks good on the surface but if you dig deep, its not really based on science, because infact science proves it wrong.

So' date=' what have you heard against avolution? i think it's the most reliable thing ive ever heard up to date. Obviously, there are lots of things that haven't been discovered about the subject yet , but that doesnt mean it wont be posible to find an answer to them one day...[/quote']

 

 

I hope i answered your question...lol.

Holy crap!

 

was that like, a 10-tupple post?! haha.

 

Anyway, I agree (I think). Evolution also requires a bit of faith to believe in.

Holy crap!

 

was that like, a 10-tupple post?! haha.

 

Anyway, I agree (I think). Evolution also requires a bit of faith to believe in.

 

Faith's one thing, but its been completely disproven using science.

I can post a lot of science stuff later on tonight to disprove it

 

wow... u sure do go by your promises :stunned::wacko:

 

I'll try to read some later.. im sorta tired right now

the point is, every coin has 2 sides. Im sure anyone could find just as much scientific proof that evolution is right... so I guess alyssa is right- there is some faith in it. It depends which side u choose to believe. Or what other things you believe in in general. Like relegious ppl, for example, who dont believe in evolution.