Darwin Theory of Evolution has been proven scientifically

[PUNISHER]

Big boss is very happy with you performance on your 1st assignment here
The samurais are proud to be your team and comrade, bravo

You are right my brother , our master is very proud to have you and the samurai team !! Keep up the good work our emperor will reward us handsomely

 

[PUNISHER]

hooray we are indeed a powerful team indeed. Drifter team wan sui wan sui.

Brother , our emperor have already created a team of kamikaze to join our team ... Banzai !!!!

 

[Toronto]

The Catholic Church disapproved Intelligent Design:

1. In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific.

 

[songsongpunggol]

Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised
By Randy Alcorn, Jim Darnall

I wrote the following article many years ago, and it has now been through two revisions. Thanks to Phil Gaskill for working on the latest revision and providing additional updated information.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present. Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution. The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell. The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source. DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating. However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA. Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth.

3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution.
Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative.
The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types. However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones. For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.
If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes, and most fossils hailed with much fanfare as “missing links” are later quietly reclassified as simply extinct varieties of non-human primates. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” were fully human. The body hair and the blank expressions of the supposedly primitive humans in these models don’t come from the bones, but from the evolutionary assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones. The “missing links” are still missing.

7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy. In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption. In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline. What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock! In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline. This is a classic case of circular thinking! Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock. This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same. Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old. If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age?

8. “Leftover” body structures are not evidence for evolution.
Evolutionists point to vestigial organs (supposedly “leftover” body structures with no know function) as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. In fact, over 100 organs formerly thought of as vestigial are now known to perform essential functions. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs and only a small number are still considered vestigial. It is increasingly clear that vestigial organs are not the result of evolution but simply examples of scientific ignorance. It’s also worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. Proponents of evolution need to provide examples of developing organs that are not yet fully functional but can be shown to be increasing in complexity with each succeeding generation. No such examples exist.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
There are two types of science. Operational science deals with the present, and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena. Historical science deals with the past, which is not repeatable. Investigations of origins clearly fall within the scope of historical science, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. This interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior beliefs. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.

Recommended books on evolution:


Refuting Evolution I and II (Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)
The Answers Book (Revised and expanded by Ken Ham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Carl Wieland)
Not By Chance! (Dr. Lee Spetner)
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Dr. Michael Behe)
In the Beginning was Information (Dr. Werner Gitt)
Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism (Phillip Johnson)
A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Dean L. Overman)
The Creation Hypothesis (J. P. Moreland)
The Case for a Creator (Lee Strobel)

 

[songsongpunggol]

Fatal Flaws of Evolution

1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from. Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.

With no answers to these important issues, they havenothing to offer the world

2. Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer. Without finding life on other planets, the question ‘why earth’ is very important. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet selected for life or the process’. Too many other questions arise as well. How did evolution get here? How did it form? Why would it form? Why would it get involved in life?

Just too many unanswered questions and it seems evolutionists are left with little more than ‘just because’ or ‘why not’. They complain about Christians saying ‘God did it’ but they are in the same boat when evolution is investigated beyond the surface.

3. Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.

Even cats know to find warmth when it gets cold and one would think that early man would have done the same. Yet evolutionists want us to think that we descended from complete dolts.

Finally, science cannot tell us what we did last week let alone 2,000 years ago. How do they expect that they can say what took place 100,000,000 years ago or more/less? It is just ridiculous.

4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded. It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.

This is perpetuating the idea of ‘something from nothing’ as ‘the process’ has nothing yet it was able to produce everything from preferred diets, down to different colors.

5. Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
6. Morality: Another vital issue that evolutionists cannot explain. They may try to say it comes from a gene yet how did the gene ‘conceive of it’? or where did the gene receive the idea of morality or that it would be needed?
In evolution, where survival of the fittest is the key theme, morality plays no role for evolution is all about anarchy not moral behavior. Since evolution knows nothing, it is impossible for it to instill proper behavior in its resulting forms and it could not provide an ideal standard for its product to use as a guide.
At best, only animal instincts would reside in all species including humans, meaning that a Hitlerian attitude against the sick and weak would reign without competition from those who disagree.
7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans. There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.

With no concept of God, no guidance from a moral ideal, life on earth would just be one animal attacking another animal for its possessions. Since there would be no rules, then all is good and it wouldn’t matter what one person did to another, there would be no punishment for killing, raping and other crimes as there would be no definition of what a crime was.

Evolution doesn’t know anything thus it could not instill in its species any desire for a moral life for no one would know what morality was? With no concept of God or a god, there would be no religions whatsoever and no reminder of that one is living a less than stellar life. It would be total anarchy.

CONCLUSION:

It is clear that 'the process of evolution' has no idea that humans exist, does not care if they live or die and provides very little in the way of guidance and information to help people live better lives.

Yet many choose this path over someone who does care if they live or die, does know that they exist and does provide information to guide humans along with providing hope, love and eternal life after death, if they make the right choice.

Unfortunately, the adherents of 'the process' will reject this person because 1. the information comes in an ancient book; 2. provides little physical evidence; 3. doesn't put man at the top of the 'food chain'; 4. allows them free choice

Obviously, those who believe in God are not the ones chasing a fairy tale or being irrational but are making a better choice.


RESOURCES:

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

http://www.uncg.edu/psy/courses/calo...t/ModelsBE.htm

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...inoflife.shtml

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/...arth_final.pdf

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html

http://thankgodforevolution.com/blog...ity-and-ethics

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/S...maldino598.php

http://www.twoorthree.net/2007/08/fossil-evidence.html

http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/tl1.html

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/w...sing-link.html

http://www.iend.org/dad/dna.html

 

[Boliao]

1. If the Bible is 100% factually accurate, then the Universe is not billions of years old.
2. The Universe is billions of years old.
3. Therefore the Bible is not 100% factually accurate.

The notion that the Universe is ~14 billion years old is a theory that resulted from Big Bang. The Big Bang itself is a flawed theory that created more questions than answers. The result, more theory developed over the years to address the flaws of one theory and in turn creating more questions.

There are too many articles out that and scientific websites that highlights inconsistencies and problem with the Big Bang theory. The time horizon, the question of what was before the cosmo egg, the technical issues with the measurement of radiation and heat etc.

 

[Toronto]

The Catholic Church disapproved Intelligent Design:


2. Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has also denounced intelligent design.

 

[Boliao]

The Catholic Church disapproved Intelligent Design:


2. Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has also denounced intelligent design.

The Catholic Church also has 13 more books than the bible, kiss the feet of statues (idol worshiping), openly display pagan/ satanic cross/ upside down cross, prays to the intermediary "Virgin Mary" and denounce direct relationship with God. Ask any Catholic basic questions about the bible and you'll draw blank looks.

Matt 13:1-23 Parable of the Sower and Seeds

 

[Psalm23]

Fatal Flaws of Evolution........

Songsongpunggol,

Your two threats on the "Fatal Flaws of Evolution" speak volume and truly testify that a Creator exits. But, alas, we are not going to see those anti-God reply or make any comments on the two threads.

No one....not even scientists (except perhaps Richard Hawking) has any doubt that information must come from a mind and information, being an immaterial substance cannot be created from nowhere. DNA is digital information. It's not just passive information but active instructional and programming information. And through these instructional and programming attributes, DNA determines the nature of the cells which in turn determines the types of the living organism.

God bless and Have a Great Weekend.

Psalm23

 

[PUNISHER]

The notion that the Universe is ~14 billion years old is a theory that resulted from Big Bang. The Big Bang itself is a flawed theory that created more questions than answers. The result, more theory developed over the years to address the flaws of one theory and in turn creating more questions.

There are too many articles out that and scientific websites that highlights inconsistencies and problem with the Big Bang theory. The time horizon, the question of what was before the cosmo egg, the technical issues with the measurement of radiation and heat etc.

That's how wonderful science is . Science make you open up your mind while religion stop you from thinking by giving you some illogical answer .

 

[PUNISHER]

Fatal Flaws of Evolution

1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from. Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.

With no answers to these important issues, they havenothing to offer the world

2. Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer. Without finding life on other planets, the question ‘why earth’ is very important. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet selected for life or the process’. Too many other questions arise as well. How did evolution get here? How did it form? Why would it form? Why would it get involved in life?

Just too many unanswered questions and it seems evolutionists are left with little more than ‘just because’ or ‘why not’. They complain about Christians saying ‘God did it’ but they are in the same boat when evolution is investigated beyond the surface.

3. Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.

Even cats know to find warmth when it gets cold and one would think that early man would have done the same. Yet evolutionists want us to think that we descended from complete dolts.

Finally, science cannot tell us what we did last week let alone 2,000 years ago. How do they expect that they can say what took place 100,000,000 years ago or more/less? It is just ridiculous.

4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded. It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.

This is perpetuating the idea of ‘something from nothing’ as ‘the process’ has nothing yet it was able to produce everything from preferred diets, down to different colors.

5. Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
6. Morality: Another vital issue that evolutionists cannot explain. They may try to say it comes from a gene yet how did the gene ‘conceive of it’? or where did the gene receive the idea of morality or that it would be needed?
In evolution, where survival of the fittest is the key theme, morality plays no role for evolution is all about anarchy not moral behavior. Since evolution knows nothing, it is impossible for it to instill proper behavior in its resulting forms and it could not provide an ideal standard for its product to use as a guide.
At best, only animal instincts would reside in all species including humans, meaning that a Hitlerian attitude against the sick and weak would reign without competition from those who disagree.
7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans. There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.

With no concept of God, no guidance from a moral ideal, life on earth would just be one animal attacking another animal for its possessions. Since there would be no rules, then all is good and it wouldn’t matter what one person did to another, there would be no punishment for killing, raping and other crimes as there would be no definition of what a crime was.

Evolution doesn’t know anything thus it could not instill in its species any desire for a moral life for no one would know what morality was? With no concept of God or a god, there would be no religions whatsoever and no reminder of that one is living a less than stellar life. It would be total anarchy.

CONCLUSION:

It is clear that 'the process of evolution' has no idea that humans exist, does not care if they live or die and provides very little in the way of guidance and information to help people live better lives.

Yet many choose this path over someone who does care if they live or die, does know that they exist and does provide information to guide humans along with providing hope, love and eternal life after death, if they make the right choice.

Unfortunately, the adherents of 'the process' will reject this person because 1. the information comes in an ancient book; 2. provides little physical evidence; 3. doesn't put man at the top of the 'food chain'; 4. allows them free choice

Obviously, those who believe in God are not the ones chasing a fairy tale or being irrational but are making a better choice.


RESOURCES:

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

http://www.uncg.edu/psy/courses/calo...t/ModelsBE.htm

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...inoflife.shtml

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/...arth_final.pdf

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html

http://thankgodforevolution.com/blog...ity-and-ethics

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/S...maldino598.php

http://www.twoorthree.net/2007/08/fossil-evidence.html

http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/tl1.html

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/w...sing-link.html

http://www.iend.org/dad/dna.html

Most of the website you provided is jesus ass kissing site would you rather believe that god create everything on earth and stop you from using your brain to think ? will you stop thinking about how earth come about if I tell you Tuayapeh created everything on earth ?

 

[Psalm23]

That's how wonderful science is . Science make you open up your mind while religion stop you from thinking by giving you some illogical answer .

I bet to drastically differ from your opinion. Many great inventors such as Issac Newton, Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Alexandra Fleming were strong believer of the God of the Bible. In fact, quite unknown to many people, Sir Issac Newton spent most later part of his years studying Bible and writing papers relating to theology than science. In terms of Noble Prize winners for science, the Jews even though have small population (in relations to other races) dominated the awards. Jews, as many us knew, are strong believers of the Old Testament and even till this day, many orthodox Jews strongly subscribed to the teaching of the Torah and many are practicing what the Torah teaches them.

So, get your facts right!

 

[Toronto]

The notion that the Universe is ~14 billion years old is a theory that resulted from Big Bang. The Big Bang itself is a flawed theory that created more questions than answers. The result, more theory developed over the years to address the flaws of one theory and in turn creating more questions.

There are too many articles out that and scientific websites that highlights inconsistencies and problem with the Big Bang theory. The time horizon, the question of what was before the cosmo egg, the technical issues with the measurement of radiation and heat etc.

The earlier conclusion that the age of the earth is not anywhere near the biblical time-frame of thousands of years is not being disputed so far, so we can close that and carry on with the debate on the age of the universe.

 

[Toronto]

The Universe is billions of Years Old

In the 1920’s, Edwin Hubble discovered a positive relationship between a galaxy’s velocity (derived from its red shifted light), and its distance from Earth (derived from its Cepheid stars) (Filkin and Hawking 1997). Hubble wrote a mathematical equation: Velocity = Hubble Constant x Distance which is now termed Hubble’s Law. In the words of Stephen Hawking (2001, 77) “… Hubble’s law, established that the universe is expanding with the Hubble constant H setting the rate of expansion”.

In 1990, NASA launched the Hubble Space Telescope, the primary justification for spending billions of taxpayer dollars was to obtain an accurate Hubble constant (Christensen and Fosbury 2006). We now know that the Hubble constant is 70.6 ± 3.1 km/sec/megaparsec (Suyu et al. 2010) and that the age of the universe is 13.7 ± 0.14 billion years old (Dick 2008). We know this because the Hubble constant can be projected backward in time reversing the expansion of the universe.

 

[Toronto]

Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised
By Randy Alcorn, Jim Darnall

I wrote the following article many years ago, and it has now been through two revisions. Thanks to Phil Gaskill for working on the latest revision and providing additional updated information.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present. Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution. The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell. The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created.

Hi songsongpunggol,
You copy wholesale the article without understanding the content cos some the points (like radioactive dating, human -ape... and more) have been discussed and refuted in earlier posts. Or you have not read them first?


"1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.??"

A. Evolution doesn't create things "by chance". It's a cumulative process; it builds on itself over time. Every time something good comes along, it is conserved. In this way, you can keep adding complexity in tiny, reasonable steps. After a few thousands steps, things can get pretty complex, and that's not only okay, it's PREDICTED BY THE THEORY.


B. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

 

[Conqueror]

Yes, I Use The Same Thing Here To Fight Atheists

I bet to drastically differ from your opinion. Many great inventors such as Issac Newton, Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Alexandra Fleming were strong believer of the God of the Bible. In fact, quite unknown to many people, Sir Issac Newton spent most later part of his years studying Bible and writing papers relating to theology than science. In terms of Noble Prize winners for science, the Jews even though have small population (in relations to other races) dominated the awards. Jews, as many us knew, are strong believers of the Old Testament and even till this day, many orthodox Jews strongly subscribed to the teaching of the Torah and many are practicing what the Torah teaches them.

So, get your facts right!

That's right. Upz you.

These atheists have no idea who have contributed USEFUL stuff for mankind. Atheists are always favouring fake science that is useless and wasting taxpayers monies. Not sure whether Higgs Bozo is going to be a waste of taxpayers monies again.

Yes, I always use this to fend them off. These atheists in the west have nothing counter this.


[video=youtube;O3o54TS4p8Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3o54TS4p8Y[/video]

 

[Toronto]

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source. DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating. However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA. Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth.

Clearly a fundamental flaw in the understanding. Evolutionary theory doesn't propose chance as being the cause. It proposes natural selection.

A. Nobody has ever come up with a useful definition of supernatural. By most definitions, something having an effect on nature makes that something a part of nature itself. So any explanation for something we see in nature (DNA) can be considered natural by definition.

B. We cannot observe the supernatural, so the only way we could reach the supernatural explanation would be to eliminate all natural explanations. But we can never know that we have eliminated all possibilities. Even if a supernatural explanation is correct, we can never reach it.

C. Suppose we do conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct. It is impossible, even in principle, to distinguish one supernatural explanation from another. Many people, including many scientists, are willing to accept certain supernatural explanations on faith. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they do not claim special privilege for their faith. Some people, however, are not satisfied unless others believe as they do; this group includes all those who want to make the supernatural a part of science. Since they cannot make their case by using naturalistic evidence, they must resort to other means, such as force of arms. (This is not hyperbole. Such groups continually attempt to get political enforcement on their side.)

D. If science do miss a supernatural explanation, so what? Supernatural explanations cannot be generalized, so the explanation does not matter anywhere else. The usefulness of science comes from the ability to apply findings to different areas. Any supernatural explanation would be useless.

F. Explanations in terms of the supernatural are evaluated to the extent it is actually possible to do so. For example, scientists have investigated faith healing (Benson et al. 2006) and creationist claims about a global flood and age of the earth.

G. Creationist accounts of origins are not disqualified. People are free to believe whatever religion they choose. P. E. Johnson and others like him merely object to their religion not being taught as science to the exclusion of all other religious interpretations (not to mention to the exclusion of all of science).

"The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence" -Well, it is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion . Creationism is untestable .

 

[PUNISHER]

I bet to drastically differ from your opinion. Many great inventors such as Issac Newton, Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Alexandra Fleming were strong believer of the God of the Bible. In fact, quite unknown to many people, Sir Issac Newton spent most later part of his years studying Bible and writing papers relating to theology than science. In terms of Noble Prize winners for science, the Jews even though have small population (in relations to other races) dominated the awards. Jews, as many us knew, are strong believers of the Old Testament and even till this day, many orthodox Jews strongly subscribed to the teaching of the Torah and many are practicing what the Torah teaches them.

So, get your facts right!

They read the bible as a story book and nothing else . They study the bible does not mean they believe in it . Many people read the bible and realized its fake .. Do not assumed those who read the bible are being brainwashed to believe it

 

[PUNISHER]

I bet to drastically differ from your opinion. Many great inventors such as Issac Newton, Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Alexandra Fleming were strong believer of the God of the Bible. In fact, quite unknown to many people, Sir Issac Newton spent most later part of his years studying Bible and writing papers relating to theology than science. In terms of Noble Prize winners for science, the Jews even though have small population (in relations to other races) dominated the awards. Jews, as many us knew, are strong believers of the Old Testament and even till this day, many orthodox Jews strongly subscribed to the teaching of the Torah and many are practicing what the Torah teaches them.

So, get your facts right!

They read the bible as a story book and nothing else . They study the bible does not mean they believe in it . Many people read the bible and realized its fake .. Do not assumed those who read the bible are being brainwashed to believe it get your facts right

 

[Toronto]

3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution.
Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

A. Anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. Evolution scientists have observed the evolution of

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• bnovel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

B. If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

C. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

• Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
• RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
• Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

D. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

E. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

F. Most mutations are indeed harmful and are purged from populations by natural selection. Some, however, are beneficial as shown in many experiments. Complex adaptations usually are based not on single mutations, but on combinations of mutations that jointly or successively increase in frequency due to natural selection.

G. Nobody claims that amoebas evolved into men, but EVEN IF SOMEONE DID, amoebas actually have the largest genomes we know of so no "new genetic information" would be needed to morph their genomes into ours. You'd actually have to discard about 60-80% of their genome to do it (amoebas have ~100 000 genes; humans have about 25 000).