A petulant little place on the internet called http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/100things.html#top has a special little list. It’s funny. Let’s go through it. Oh, and, despite the fact that it says ‘100 things’ it only lists 93.
TL;DR – most of this can be summarised as ‘why does this impact biological evolution?’
Oh, and thank you http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html – I’m happy to admit that I pretty much just copy pasted some of the answers.
‘1. The Bible The Book of Books. Why won’t it go away? Don’t people realize it is just a bunch of mythology? Why don’t they get it?! Well… perhaps they do get it. Maybe that is why it has stood the test of time.’
Stood the test of time is a little vague. Been around a long time is a better term. So what? The Quran has been around a long time. So’s the Edda. So what? You know what else has been around for a long time; the pyramids. Perhaps I’m being simply too literal here. Does this mean that the Christian faith has endured for two thousand years? Yeah… your point? I’m not sure why this is something we should hate. Sure, a lot of atheists dislike the Bible because we think it’s immoral. Evolutionists, on the other hand, well I don’t think we care to much about the Bible, no more than we care about the Big Book of Grimm’s Fairy tales.
‘2.God To believe in God is to believe in a supreme being, capable of creating life from non-life. This possibility is rejected by “empirical science” without hesitation.’
Not exactly. Science has simply come to the conclusion that it cannot definitively prove or disprove god so they don’t try to do either. Atheists do not believe in God because why believe in something that cannot be proved, just the same way that most atheists don’t believe in Bigfoot.
‘3.Noah and The Ark
The Noah’s Ark story has been around a long time. It is a permanent fixture in the human conscience. You don’t have to “explain” it to anyone. Not only that, but it is a global story. Flood legends have been found in nearly every cultural center the world over. They have several things in common. A God, wanted to punish a people who had gone astray, he sent a worldwide flood (not fire, not hail, not giant flesh eating monsters, it is always a “great flood”) to wipe out the evil that was upon the earth. A few were saved, and they repopulated the earth. This story has been preserved in more than 300 such ‘myths’ of ancient peoples around the earth. And what is worse, a global flood would explain away many of the strange features of the earth, and the fossils. Good evolutionsts are quick to point out that it was a “local” flood. But why don’t ancient peoples recall it that way?’
Tell me, can you name a place that doesn’t have rainfall? Also, how many flood myths have the same reason for the flood? The biblical account mentioned above is, unsurprisingly, only mentioned in the bible.
Oh, you mentioned Noah as well. Do all the flood myths mention Noah or even specify who was present during and after?
If all flood myths do have Noah or some other biblical figure as their common source, then why are they so varied in all other aspects other than the flood? Flood myths are easiest explained by local cultures experiencing a big nasty flood. Missionaries tend to get around a lot as well.
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.’
Errr… what? Healthier individuals from a species will pass on their characteristics from generation to generation. If they have a beneficial mutation that will be passed on potentially. How is this hard to comprehend?
‘5.The Fossil Record The fossils do not show a smooth gradiation from lower life to higher organisms. The reason we have the term “missing links” is because they are a fact of the fossil record. What we find buried in aqueous sediments are various animal “kinds”. They are the same “kinds” we have today, with the exception of extinct kinds.’
Lul wut? Plenty of transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual sequence of forms. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.
‘6.Unconformities, Paraconformities These are geological terms which are used to notate locations around the earth where the geological strata are “out of order” according to the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, when the most basic of sea-life is found sitting comfortably on top of strata containing “more evolved” organisms.’
Noooo, an unconformity is ‘a buried erosional or non-depositional surface separating two rock masses or strata of different ages, indicating that sediment deposition was not continuous. In general, the older layer was exposed to erosion for an interval of time before deposition of the younger, but the term is used to describe any break in the sedimentary geologic record.’ You can get that by having a landslide that is recompacted or something digging a hole through layers of rock (if you really want to involve organisms in this strictly geological term).
Creatures once thought extinct, that suddenly are found, alive and well. Yet oddly, made no appearance in the ‘fossil record’ for supposed millions of years! Now that is a disappearing act!
You do know that the coelacanth lived under water, right? Like really deep water? The first fossils were found 100 years before the first live specimen was identified in 1938.
The two that we’ve found alive are called the L. chalumnae and Macropoma, and live off the coast of South Africa and Indonesia. At this time we’re not sure if either is the same as the fossil ones – it’s very hard to study either. Even if they are the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
It is one thing when you can find something in the fossils, say, a dinosaur and say, “see, that was a big, strange creature, and we don’t have those anymore! We evolved!”. But it is much more difficult when you find something that is said to be millions of years old and hasn’t changed a bit. According to evolution, with enough time, species evolve. It just happens. Well, that is, except in those cases like the cockroach or the horseshoe crab, where it just doesn’t.’
Yeah… you don’t get evolution. You don’t just evolve ‘because’. Things evolve based on environmental pressures – they become plastic to their environment. The organism does not decide to do anything. Individual organisms do not evolve; populations do. The individual’s role is to survive and reproduce, or not. Those that are good at staying alive long enough to fuck tend to do both.
‘9.Laws of Nature
If all is a cosmic accident, why do we have “laws of nature”? Or for that matter, structure or order of any kind? Why have gravity, etc.? What about laws of civilization, such as “do not kill” “do not lie”. Why shouldn’t we? If evolution is true than none of this would matter, and the world around us would be governed by chaos and accident.’
All the lolz were had that day. Why do we have gravity? Because matter condenses and space attempts to expand.
The laws of civilisation are different from place to place and time to time – tell me about your gods desire to punish those who pickup sticks on a Sunday and kill homosexuals. Humans make laws, by and large, that represent stuff they don’t want to happen to them.
The “great quotes” archives of the creationists are stuffed with statements made by frustrated evolutionists who fessed up to the weaknesses in the theory. You can bet that some of them wish they had kept their traps shut.’
Citation needed. Do you perhaps mean folks that creationists have quote mined like buggery?
‘11.Heart Mountain ‘Thrust’’
Earth Love Push! Water Hate Ram! Long story short, a mountain slid down itself. Was it because of the GREAT FLOOD or volcanic activity in the area????!!!11
While the Coelacanth fish was being paraded about in school textbooks as the fish that waddled onto the shore millions of years ago, it was being accidentally caught by local fishermen in Madagascar. The strange looking fish turned out to be… a fish. It didn’t have lungs, as once believed, and studies of their habits in the wild, did not reveal any desire to leave their deep water lifestyle for land excursions. Yet another pillar of evolution falls down… ‘
No. No it wasn’t. At one point the idea of the Coelocanth being the critter that came out of the sea and walked on land was cool and topical, but it died a death a loooooooooong time ago. The media took the idea of it walking because media like to sell papers and add space. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria (the modern coelacanth) isn’t present in the fossil record so the term living fossil is layman BS.
Ancient pottery has been found that depicts all kinds of strange things. Well, if you call men fighting dinosaurs strange, that is. If man could have lived with dinosaurs, which went extinct 65 million years ago, that would be a problem if the pottery was only 4,000 years old.’
Citation needed. Oh, oh, wait, I can play this game too; furries are real because Deviantart exists!
Myths are an interesting thing. They are full of strange and ridiculous stories. But, strangely, there is a common thread among many stories told by ancient peoples. Among these commonalities are a creator God (or gods), a previous world, a worldwide flood catastrophe and a time of darkness. Is it a mere coincidence that so many cultures are in some way or another telling the same basic story? Click here for some of the Flood Myths’
Yeah, myths are interesting and cool and can tell really good stories about what make people people. You know what else does that? The Famous Five books. Tell me there isn’t a bunch of kids and a dog out there solving mysteries.
Creator God – most people have a mother and a father. Most people have grandparents. They realise that going back to in time there will have been many generations of other people. They are left with the inevitable question; so what came before the first man and woman. Being pattern recognising individuals they jumped on the idea that a bi sky daddy did it all.
Worldwide flood catastrophe – yeah, no. You’re trying to make this one work too hard. See above for my response to that.
A time of darkness – well shit, things aint always been so good and may go bad again. Not sure what we’re seeing here other than human pattern spotting.
‘15.The Chinese Language
The ancient Chinese lanquage is one of the oldest still in use. It is interesting as well, because it is a pictographic text. That is, the characters actually are groupings of pictures which represent words or phrases. When looked at closely they tell a story. For example the word “boat” which is made up of the words “eight”, “person” and “vessel”. Noah’s ark was the most memorable boat of all time, and according to the Bible had Noah, his wife, and three children, along with their wives. A total of 8. This may seem like a coincidence, at first, but there are many other examples!’
Yeah no this is a coincidence. Not sure why atheists are supposed to hate this?
‘16.The Pyramids of Egypt
The three main pyramids on the Giza Plateau in Egypt are believed by some scientists to be MUCH older than was once assumed, and are constructed with a much higher level of craftsmanship. Recently, scientists have learned that all three of them, as well as the famous Sphynx, show signs of severe water damage. But there hasn’t been enough rain on the Giza Plateau to account for this in the last 4,500 years! If they are much older, then early ‘primitive’ man must have stood erect and got to work right away building precisely aligned, 15 million ton megoliths!’
Yeah, thousands of years worth of rain will cause water damage, even in the desert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis
‘Micheal Behe, a noted authority on Biochemistry points out the obvious evolutionary problems at the micro level. This is where change would have to occur in Darwinistic evolution. Many highly organized cells are actually ‘micro-machines’ which carry out sophisticated functions in the organism. At the time that Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species, in 1800’s scientists did not have any knowledge of intracellular complexity. The problem of ‘Irreducible Complexity’ is that if you were to remove any one part (as you would have to be able to show that the end product was a result of incremental additions) the entire mechanism would breakdown and the result to the cell would be disadvantageous or even catastrophic to the organism. (for instance if your blood would no longer clot).
“Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” (Emphasis added)’
Irreducible complexity is bunk. It fails its first claim – that certain systems couldn’t have evolved – and then jumps the shark claiming that those systems were designed.
These supposedly ancient sea creatures would be easier to explain away if they were extinct like the dinosaurs. Why? Because they are unchanged after 544 million years! Why did they rebel against the ‘inevetible’ powers of evolution? Because God designed them as Horseshoe Crabs.’
Another ‘living fossil’ load of BS. Look at the coelacanth for a refutation of this.
‘19.Sir Richard Owen
This noteable scientist was the british comparative anatomist who coined the phrase “dinosaur”. He also helped to establish the London Museum of Natural History. He lived at the same time as Charles Darwin, and was considered by Darwin as the highest in his field. He was also a creationist, who believed in God. But I thought all scientists agree with evolution?’
And the Queen of the time would have been a creationist as well. What’s your point? Appeal to authority much?
‘20.Evolution Approval Ratings
According to a 1999 Gallup poll, some 68% would prefer that creationism was taught along side evolution in the classrooms, as opposed to 29% who preferred only evolution. The polling publishers went so far as to try and remove the sting of this fact, by saying that it wasn’t so surprising when ‘other factors’ are considered, such as the education levels of those being polled. Yeah. We’re just DUMB. Is that it? Haha! They just don’t get it.’
Uh-hu. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Public_support Tell me more bro.
‘21.Unborn Human Children
By claiming that the unborn developing embryo was passing through an “evolutionary” stage where it “mimmicked” its past, Ernst Haeckel and others, convinced many people that this non-human stage was much more like a fish. Even tiny “slits” were pointed out to be gills, and proof of this fishlike stage. (They later turned out to be folds of skin, and not slits). This helped usher in the modern era of unborn infant slaughter. After all, it is really more like a fish than a person.’
Abortion is a thing. Its sometimes medically necessary. Your bible even has it in it – http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
‘22.Dark Skinned People
Darwin, and many more of his followers have used evolutionary theory to justify mistreatment of the supposed “lower” races. This is appauling and unforgiveable. Darwin even forcasted that at some point white skinned peoples would wipe out the dark skinned (less evolved) people. This is utterly ridiculous. They didn’t read that Darwin quote in my classroom.’
Darwin was wrong. In the same way that I think PZ Meyers for his SJW stance, I’m not about to discredit his work as a scientist. Take a trip back 150 years and see how racially sensitive your fellow Christians were. Some of them (Louis Agassiz) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery and he contributed to missionary work.
Still not sure what I’m supposed to be hating here.
Scientists who are eager to establish evolution have been exposing organisms such as fruit flies to radiation for decades. This is supposed to produce evolutionary change. Well, Hiroshima should have been an evolutionary PARADISE creating all sorts of new life and favorable mutations! Sadly, it mainly caused death and deformity. Better luck will not be had next time.’
You dumb fuck. Citation, fucking citation needed. Where have any scientists said that Hiroshima should be a paradise of evolution? We expose fruitflies to radiation to study the effects of radiation on genes and how it might affect generations to come. It’s not some fucking Saturday morning cartoon Street Sharks style experiment.
‘24.The Word “Theory”
Evolutionists really hate this word. Afterall, after so much proof of evolution, so much scientific data, how can anyone call it theory? Well, if it is so established and obvious, why are so many scientists still so hell-bent on prooving it?’
Brain hurting. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena”. In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.
This ‘mistake’ is a big embarrassment to evolution. Established as one of the first “missing links” it had large illustrations made from it, depicting an ape-like man, with hair all over his body, and strange, ape-like feet. But, it turned out to be the fragmented cranium of a human, and the jawbone of an orangutan. It was 38 years before this ‘hoax’ was exposed. By then, it had appeared in textbooks and in museums as proof of evolution.’
Who exposed it? Creationists? No, it was scientists who worked out that it was wrong. Find me some scientific literature where the Piltdown man is used as anything other than a cautionary tale to be beware of hubris.
This large, public medium where people can write what they please, allows many Christian scientists to finally get “equal time”. The popularity of sites like Answers in Genesis are proof that there are large numbers of people who still have plenty of unanswered questions about evolution.’
The internet is the place religions go to die. This has been proved a long time ago.
Teachers who have expressed doubts about evolution in the classroom have been censored and in some cases even banned from teaching biology.’
These teachers tend to be creationists themselves and want to promote the bible over facts. I’m from England and we don’t have this problem over here – our churches understand that evolution is real.
Even though the Bible hasn’t changed in thousands of years, textbooks have to be re-written all of the time to clear up outdated science. 20 year old textbooks are an embarrasment to evolution. The Bible is not an embarrassment to me. Perhaps biology should not be trying to teach earth history?’
Oh no, please do not click on these links. No, no please don’t, my atheism will suffer if you do.
‘29.Henry M. Morris
Dr. Henry Morris is an outspoken creationist who has been very prolific in the last several years. He has authored many scientific books which uphold the accuracy of the Biblical account in Genesis. He and others like him have dealt and are still dealing a black eye to the theory of evolution.’
If you mean shouting into the void and having people snigger at them, then yes, you’re right.
Oh, before I forget; Morris was a racist. He believed in the Curse of Ham.
The fossils show that there was a time, before our own, in which not only dinosaurs were big, but in fact, many creatures were supersized. Why was this so? What was so different? The Bible has an answer for it. Evolution does not.’
Changes in the environment made size a desirable trait… things evolved to be bigger… this is not hard.
Insects found in “ancient” amber (amber is fossilized tree sap) show many examples of “stasis”. (no change over millions of years) Also, recently scientists have analyzed bubbles in amber, which revealed that air quality was substantially better in the past. It was richer in oxygen. Could this be why things lived longer and got bigger?’
Amber is one of those things that remains chemically the same despite what pressures are put on it. Not sure why that’s a problem.
Better is a bit of a funny term; better for what? For human life? For plant life?
Were there fewer pollutants? Sure. Humans have burned shit loads of coal, oil and filled the world with fumes for the last few hundred years.
More oxygen might make things bgger – depending on the traits required to thrive in their environment. Still not seeing a problem for evolution here.
A recent study actually claims that thre was less oxygen however. http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4963/20131119/dinosaurs-lived-in-a-low-oxygen-world-study-suggests.htm
Blankets found in tombs from ancient Peru depict beasts which are not unlike dinosaurs. Other art includes jaguars and other animals.’
Yup, Deviant art and its furries sure mean my furry fetish a real thing.
In Europe and Asia in the middle ages, dragon legends and depictions were common. As well as written accounts which tell of going to caves where “a dragon lives” and slaying it. It is important to note that the term “Dinosaur” was not invented until the 19th century. Why so many dragon tales? Might these have been the last of the dinosaurs? Consider the Chinese Zodiac. It has 12 creatures. All of them known to us as common animals. Pig, Dog, Ox, etc., etc. Why is there also a Dragon? Perhaps it was just another known creature at the time the Zodiac was created.’
So vampires, werewolves, giants, ghosts, satires, centaurs, bigfoot and goblins are also real?
‘Cataclysms, specifically floods
Geologists are well trained to read the rocks as laid down by wind and rain sediments over long periods of time. Cataclysms, such as floods and volcanic eruptions are capable of creating layered strata and fossils as well. In fact, they may be a better way of explaining other things, like why fossils don’t form today. Recently, more geologists ARE admitting that many of the earths features are catastrophe related. But you hear a lot more about “Ice Ages” than floods. If you were to acknowledge grand catastrophes, shouldn’t you also consider Noah’s great flood? Shhhh…..’
Yawn. You’re really making this flood thing work for its supper aren’t you? What’s next, you’ll get it to dress like a whore and work out its daddy issues on it?
This is basically another round of ‘the flood created the geological column’.
There are all sorts of variations of dogs. But only one ‘kind’. That is, ‘dog kind’. They can vary within the species, based on adaptations to environment, diet, selective breeding, but they can also be bred back again with other dogs to create a more basic dog. What’s the problem? They are all still dogs.’
Ray Comfort is begging you not to use this argument.
So are wolves and foxes members of the dog ‘kind’? Are whales and dolphins all part of the whale ‘kind’? Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past (pro tip; this is evolution).
A fine example of a man who wanted to proove evolution so badly, he would lie to do it. Read this article for more!’
I did a long refutation of this for Bri – See the Godless Heathens vs Everyone Else.
Oh look everybody, that tooth study that no one took seriously, yeah that one, well that disproves evolution and we, as evolutionists, all hate this because it’s a knock out case against our god hating belief!!!11
The scientist who described it was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another species of ape, and others were skeptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labeled as highly imaginative.
The moral of the story is that an intriguing discovery was made, scientists were initially sceptical, more evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published. Fin.
Any sign that ‘primitive’ peoples were in fact, not so primitive is unsettling to the orthodox darwinist. It upsets the progression from monkey to man. The more archaeology turns up, the more it points to the earliest peoples behaving like… well… people.’
Yeah, because they were people. It’s funny how that works isn’t it; a primate species evolved to the point where they were able to use tools and create technology. No evolutionary scientist has said that early man wasn’t able to make neat stuff, but no one should take that to mean that the romans had airports.
‘Mayan Blue Paint
Even more troubling than early civilization, are examples where the ancients were actually ‘smarter’ than us. ‘Forever Blue’ paint, used by the ancient Mayans, is such an example. Put it on once, and it is good for two thousand years! It still looks great today. As far as I know, you can’t get a 2,000 year warranty on your paint from Sherwin Williams.’
You could have chosen a better ancient example – cave panting for instance. I’m still not sure why this is a problem for evolution. If the Mayans had ultra cool long lasting paint then it just means they had a pretty good formula for paint. So?
This is another variation on the ‘primitive man must have been primitive’ argument. Think of it this way, stick a few people down on a desert island. Give them sticks, rocks and string. Is it more likely that they will create basic tools or cell phones first?
A recent startling find of the worlds “oldest” preserved Cockroach fossil, strangely a nearly perfectly preserved carcass, revealed that they didn’t ‘evolve’ at all in quite some time. 300 million years in fact. Hey, don’t you go changin’!’
Did the environment they were in change beyond the cockroach’s ability to cope? If not then they won’t evolve.
Textbook pictures and museum diagrams like to show a smooth, linear progression of horse evolution from the early ‘Eohippus’ to the modern ‘Equus’. The problem is that to tell this story, you have to add too many ribs, then subtract, go from several toes to fewer, then more, then back down to the modern hoof, as well as the fact that the ‘fossil record’ doesn’t help either, showing many supposed ancient horses appearing next to modern horses in the strata. Horse evolution is another example where the theory looks great on the brochure, but not in the full blown book. For more on the sad state of Horse Evolution, click here. Another mystery of ancient horses is how they came to leave footprints alongside dinosaurs in Uzbekistan, where 86 consecutive prints are found. But wait a minute, horses didn’t evolve until long after dinosaurs were gone!’
First, horse evolution isn’t straightforward. The horse family tree branches loads. The only one we have left is our familiar Equus. We can trace its evolution in the same way we can trace our own – we have a progression from A to B. One fossil horse that we find is by no means on the same branch of the family tree as our horse. Hell, its not even likely to be on the same side of the trunk.
But it’s never been smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates or didn’t evolve together and occasionally regressed.
‘Sir John Eccles – Noebel Prize Winner
If you read any of the anti-creationist literature, you will see creationists painted as a bunch of uninformed, uneducated, country bumpkins, who are too scientifically lazy, or just plain unqualified to think for themselves. How do they deal with a guy like Sir John Eccles, a Noebel Prize Winner who boldly contends that we are the product of “divine creation”?’
Yeah, my dad is one of the smartest people I know – guy still can’t paint a room without his ADD spacking him out. Some people who are clever in some areas are idiots in others.
Ancient historic texts such as Josephus, who wrote down the Antiquities of the Jews, spoke of a former time that was destroyed by a massive worldwide flood. They also point to a creator God. These things have to be dismissed as primitive legends and fantasies. It is a further fact, that a worldwide flood catastrophe was the prevailing scientific view almost all the way up until the time of Darwin, in the middle of the 19th century. Why was 2000 years worth of history discarded?’
Another flood? Damn, she must be working those daddy issues out real hard. See above, again.
Life would be much easier for evolutionary theory if time and natural circumstances were the best explaination for its biggest “proof”, the fossils. Unfortunately, time and natural circumstances don’t create many fossils. Catastrophes of immense proportions do, however. What makes a fossil? Many people do not know. If they did, evolution might be questioned more frequently. When an organism dies, it is most likely that it will be devoured by scavengers and the decay will take care of the rest. So how is it that fossils in some cases even preserve prints of the soft tissues? Rapid burial is the answer. How do time and natural circumstances explain the massive bone beds which exist, such as the Karoo, a flood plain in S. Africa, where untold numbers of animals are found all jumbled together in a vast fossil graveyard. Even after decades of scavenging from the area bones are still sticking out of the ground. Are we not to question how the literal billions of rapidly buried creatures came to be there in the first place? Flood geology, while ridiculed and scoffed at by the scientific establishment, has a better answers for why we have the vast fossil evidences of millions and millions of rapidly buried organisms, than does evolution-based uniformitarianism. For more on flood geology, ask the experts.’
This entire thing can be summed up by one point and its refutation; ‘Catastrophes of immense proportions do, however’. No they don’t. If anything they shake things up to such a degree that they make it less likely.
‘The Human Eye
Complex organisms like the human eye were very distressing to Darwin. He confessed that it was hard to accept that his theory could account for them. But recent years have given rise to more powerful microscopy which has shown that the cellular world (which was invisible to science in Darwin’s day) is even more complicated. Organisms would have had to evolve on the microbiological level, and that would take many more mutations. Mathematically it becomes an impossibility, even given millions of years.’
First off; is half an eye better than no eye?
Secondly; Darwin said that the eye seems “absurd in the highest degree”. However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps. All of which have been observed.
This crazy critter can shoot a hot irritating gas, by mixing two chemicals – hydrogen peroxide an hydro-quinone. Until he is ready to fire, an inhibitor is present with the two chemicals, and at the exact moment he shoots, he adds an anti-inhibitor which neutralizes the inhibitor. How did this complex defense mechanism which relies on the coexistance of these chemicals evolve?’
By the process of natural selection. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
‘The Giraffe’s Long Neck
Now here’s an interesting problem. A giraffe’s neck is so long, and the blood pressure required to get blood to its head so extraordinary, that under normal circumstances, when it bends over to drink from a stream, its brain should explode. Of course it doesn’t, however, because a giraffe was designed to deal with such a situation quite simply. When the giraffe lowers its head to drink, the valves close to stop the blood rushing to the brain. These same valves prevent all the blood rushing away from the giraffe’s head, when the giraffe stands up again. Some spongy tissue below the brain also gives extra protection. Did the longer neck, the special valves, and the spongy tissues all evolve at once, as would need to be the case, so that it could continue to drink/stay alive?’
The different features evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe’s physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.
‘The Dawn Redwood Tree
According to the claims of evolutionists, the dawn redwood lived from the time of the dinosaurs until about 2 million years ago. Then it became extinct. At the same time this was official scientific teaching, Chinese rice farmers were planting the tree because it was a good indicator of fertile rice fields.’
Aaaand? You do realise that the majority of evolutionary scientists at the time were Europeans and we had no such tree in Europe save for fossil remains. When we rediscovered the tree we revised its existence.
How in the world can evolution explain away the four stages that a butterfly goes through from egg, to larva, to pupa and finally to butterfly? If you find a great explaination of this, email me and I will post the explaination here.’
Yeah, I’m losing my love for Kafka as well, I … oh, shit, wrong Metamorphosis.
Believe it or not, but silverfish are related to the butterfly. Fun fact – it doesn’t metamorphise. The mayfly does half of a metamorphosis. It’s not hard to suppose that the direct ancestors of butterflies took it one step further.
The honey bees are perplexing on so many levels. For one thing, how did they get so smart, with such tiny brains? Their ‘honeycomb’ pattern, for example, is quite possibly the most intelligent structures. It’s walls are wafer thin and lightweight, yet it is remarkably strong and stable. Did they evolve many different “rough drafts” before deciding upon the final pattern? Or were they designed by God to build the honeycomb pattern? Scientists are recently coming to see it as an incredible structure in many ways. The Honey Bee has a compound eye which can navigate by sun even on cloudy days because it has a built-in, polarized light filter. The antennae of the honey bee contain both his sense of smell and his sense of touch. For this reason they must be carefully cleaned so the honey bee has special grooves on his front legs which are perfectly designed to clean them! The Honey Bee also has hairs on his body to collect pollen, and baskets on his rear legs to carry it. He also has special glands for producing, shaping, and cleaning off wax. And when he returns home with news of a good pollen source, the Honey Bee has a language which he can use to tell the others about it.’
‘51.Mt. St. Helens
I was in Oregon when Mt. St. Helens was coming to a boil. I heard radio reports of the building lava dome, watched for weeks as the steam came out the top, and watched in amazement as the huge top portion of the mountain was blown miles into the air. There was ash all over the place, like grey snow.
What I did not know at the time, was that Mt. St. Helens would become a monument against evolution. In hours, weeks and months, stratified layers of sediment were layed down, which later turned to stone. ‘Fossil Forests’ were created, mudflows carved miniature Grand Canyons, and the entire area was completely transformed by the event. A vivid example of rapid processes performing in short periods, what evolutionary geology says take hundreds of millions of years. This is a remarkable refutation of the commonly accepted view of geology. It should also be noted that radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old.’
Those layers that were laid down are one layer, called the Holocene. That’s the age of the earth we are in now. In a billion years or so when that area gets dug up the Holocene layer will be deeper than the Tarantien and Ionain layers below it.
In the strictly uniformitarianist perspective, upon which evolutionary thought was founded, the natural world around us must be explained through means and processes which we can observe happening today. Mass extinctions, which are now being admitted to, were ruled out during evolutionary theory’s formative years. That is because if you consider them a possibility, you have a hard time keeping a global flood out of the argument. Paleontology however, has proved uniformitarianist thinking false. But sadly, many people now already accept evolution as fact. One such puzzling extinction period is known as the “K-T Boundary” where an estimated 60% of organisms on earth were wiped out. This was the end of the dinosaurs. Uniformitarianist thought can’t possibly account for it. So what happened to the dinosaurs all at once? Even the best minds at UC Berkely are stumped. But the creationists have an idea…’
When were they not being admitted to? Where does Darwin’s theory of evolution rule out anything other than ‘pop – there’s a new animal’?
AND WE’RE BACK ON THE FLOOD AGAIN! Why does a flood have to be the answer? Why not a comet, a disease, a volcanic eruption, an army of space aliens? You have a preconceived idea and you’re sticking to it.
Palaeontology is one of the best forms of evidence we have for evolution.
‘53.The Law of Biogenesis
Life comes only from life. This is the law. There is a reason why science has ‘laws’. It is a law because life coming from non-life has never been observed. So why would the very science upon which so much of the various other sciences currently rest, be allowed to break a fundemental law of science? Evolutionists must surely hate the Law of Biogenesis.’
Biogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Life can only come from life, so does that mean that your god is alive? Does he obey MRSGREN? If he doesn’t then he isn’t alive so cannot create life.
No! No! No! You can’t go teaching children that stuff! We are the ones who should be teaching your children. Proper scientists. Scientists who are at least smart enough to accept evolution as fact. There are a couple creationist museums at this time and more are being constructed at as I type this.’
I think you have finally found one thing that atheists do genuinely hate. We hate people trying to spread lies and retroactively justify their bad beliefs. I’m certain you would hate a Muslim Creation museum, as well as a Hindu, a Norse and a Native American Creation Museum. Creation myths are like the asshole of a religion; everyone has it and they all stink.
‘55.Answers In Genesis
AIG is a highly successful anti-evolution / pro creationist organization. Their slogan is “upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse” (that first verse, by the way, is “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”)
Answers in Genesis publishes articles, holds seminars, sells books, and is even building a Creation Museum in Ohio.’
Another legitimate thing we hate. Well done, have a cookie.
‘56.ICR Institute for Creation Research
Another highly successful Creationist organization is ICR. They have a long tradition of scientifically pointing out the weaknesses in evolution, and establishing the Biblical basis for science.’
Give the boy a gold star, three in a row. Here’s the rub; the folks at the ICR are laughably inaccurate with their science and tend to use studies only conducted by other creationists. They have added nothing to the scientific community as a whole, do not give lectures that are considered credible in any field of study and are regarded as the biggest losers at the table.
‘57.Right and Wrong
Why do we have right and wrong? How do people instinctively know that it is “good” to say, give a gift, and “bad” to hit someone for no reason? Even children understand these things. The Bible has an answer for this. Evolution does not.’
Here’s a little thought experiment. In a pool your best friend is drowning alongside someone you dislike. You can only save one of them. Which one is it right to save?
Any answer you give condemns another person to death. Well done, your inaction has led to someone dying. Did you make the right decision or the wrong decision or did you just make a decision based on your own personal morals? Are personal morals the driving factor in peoples decisions? Have a think about that.
A fine example of life on earth BEFORE the flood. In recent times a giant crocodile skeleton was found. Weighing in at almost 10 tones, this 40 ft monster would have dined on small dinosaurs. It is known that as reptiles age, they continue to grow. So a long life, would equate to a large reptile. It was true for dinosaurs as well as crocodiles. Why did things live longer in the past? The Bible has an answer. Evolution does not.’
Citation needed – where has any scientific paper claimed that things lived longer in the past.
Re the supercroc; what species of crocodile was it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcosuchus
Does it share the same traits as the modern Gharial? Nope.
Is it instead a species related to both modern crocs and Gharials? Oh, my word, yes, yes it is.
Does it mean that this critter isn’t the same as a modern species of animal? Oh, boy, yeah!
‘59.Fakes, Frauds and Forgeries
The evolutionary “proof” handbook is fraught with them. Some were sloppy, some were mistakes, others were downright lies intended to change the mind of the general public to embrace common ancestry. Sadly, for the most part it was a success. Still, over time, many of these frauds have been slowly coming to light.’
Who is doing the research that debunks these things? Oh yeah, scientists. Even if all the fossils of animals that are offered as proof for evolution were discovered to be hoaxes, DNA would still prove evolution hands down.
‘60.Flash Frozen Mammoths
If you can kill and preserve an organism so quickly that it’s lunch is found undigested, I think you could call that “flash” frozen. But what caused the death of the mammoths? Why did so many die so abrubtly? What caused the ‘ice age’? Science still has no solid answers. But one thing is clear. Major cataclysms have occurred in earth history.’
There’s a pretty big spectrum between ‘ingested but not digested’ right the way to ‘fully digested’. The reports of frozen mammoths with well-preserved flesh are greatly exaggerated. Parts of cadavers have been well preserved, but in all cases, the internal organs were rotted, or the body was partly eaten by scavengers, or both, before the animal became frozen. The Berezovka mammoth, perhaps the most famous example, showed evidence of very slow decay and was putrefied to the point that the excavators found its stench unbearable. The best preserved mammoth, Dima, was an infant; its small size and starved condition permitted quicker freezing, and even it had a little decomposition.
‘61.Fossil Trees in Antarctica
This may not seem like a problem at first. Until of course, you learn that trees do not grow in Antarctica. Six months of the year there is no daylight in Antarctica. How then, did these forests arise in the first place? Perhaps the climate was different at a previous stage in history? Evolution doesn’t have an answer for this. The Bible does.’
You do realise that we know that, millions of years ago, there were forests in Antarctica? It’s too cold there now, but it wasn’t always.
This famous mountain in the Swiss Alps poses an interesting problem for the “geologic column” which validates the theory of evolution. Why? Because in this mountain the fossils are in the wrong sequence. Therefore, by evolution geology, the mountain is old and the rocks the mountain rests on are young. How can this possibly be explained?
The current explanation runs thus: The enormous Matterhorn was uplifted somewhere by an upthrust and then thrust horizontally across country for thirty to sixty miles!’
I’m guessing that you don’t know what plate tectonics are.
‘63.The Coso Artifact
Once thought to be an example ancient of high technology, this artifact consisted of a spark plug completely encrusted with fossiliferous rock. When it was later decided that the artifact was in fact, a 1920’s era Champion brand sparkplug, it still presents a problem. How did it get encrusted with fossils? Clearly some things that seem to be very old, are in fact not. It is too bad that all fossils don’t come with a company logo.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coso_artifact Try again.
William Paley (1743-1805) was the author of the infamous “Watchmaker” argument. The argument states basically, that if you were walking along, and you came upon a stone in your path, you might look upon it as a natural object that had been there forever. But, if you were to come accross a watch, with all of its gears and fine tuned parts, you would certainly not argue that it had always been there and had no designer. Biologists of all stripes have to concede that the diversity of life is an unbelievable array of sophisticated organisms, featuring a multitude of fine tuned parts which serve specific and interrelated functions. Which argument stretches the mind further; that they were designed, by a masterful and purposed creator? Or that they arrived via happenstance, brought about by chance mutations?
. . . when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. . . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker — that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.’
You really aren’t trying. Who designed your god?
‘65.The ‘Ararat Anomaly’
The CIA has on file a strange manmade object on the “other side” of Mt. Ararat, where the Bible says that Noah’s Ark was brought to rest. This side has been relatively unexplored. A recent article concerning this has been published at Space.Com’
If it’s unexplored then how do the CIA have a file on it?
Mount Ararat is very likely the wrong place to look. Genesis says only that the Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat, where Ararat is not a single mountain but a region. Mount Ararat is not mentioned as a landing site until the eleventh or twelfth century.
No wooden structure can be expected to survive intact after 4,500 years. The weather on Ararat is volatile and pretty brutal; not something that will help preserve a big hunk of wood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH500.html Oh, the ark has also been seen these places.
This one is almost funny. In the supposed evolutionary order, aquatic mammals such as whales and dolphins present a quirky problem. You see, as ‘simple’ sea life grew feet and marched onto land, the became reptiles, birds and land dwelling mammals, eventually producing apes and humans. But dolphins and and whales appearently didn’t like the land too well, so they actually went the wrong way, evolutionarily speaking and headed back to the sea!’
How does this disprove evolution? This is what the fossil record shows us. Seems like this one makes you madder than us.
Common sense would dictate that any highly organized mechanism, capable of performing complex tasks, beautiful and elegant must have a designer. Random chance does not produce highly structured order.’
Take a big bag of nuts. Pour a few into your hand. Set aside all the nuts that have a crack in them. Then drop the rest of the nuts on the table, setting aside all the cracked nuts. Repeat until you have cracked all the nuts. Guess you only got to eat them nuts because of random chance!
Biology 101: Evolution is true. Anything you want to pursue from here on out is up to you.’
Oh, come on, you can do better than that.
‘69.Dust on the Moon
If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust�possibly a mile in thickness.a This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon.’
This is all based on old data and estimates. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.
Citation needed re the story of the scientists being scared. I’ve looked online and all I can find are creationist articles claiming it and linking to bugger all. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon’s surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this.
Water from an underground spring was channeled to a spot on a river bank for only one year. In that time, limestone built up around sticks lying on the bank. Limestone deposits can form rapidly if the ground water�s chemistry is favorable. Just because stalactites and stalagmites are growing slowly today does not mean they must be millions of years old.’
…and? Are you trying to say that we measure the age of the earth based on how old we think stalagmites are? We use different rocks for that.
The account of Charles Darwin’s “deathbed recantation” of evolution has been treated skeptically, and many believe it to be a complete fabrication. It has prooved difficult to proove one way or the other, but it must be said that the whole idea that Darwin might have in the end turned his back on evolutionary theory, must give darwinists the willies.’
What a man on his deathbed does or does not do has no bearing on his work. Darwin could come back from the dead and say that he thinks the whole thing is bunk and that wouldn’t change a damn thing. Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin’s daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin’s illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views. And, let’s be real here, Darwin’s theory of evolution has next to no bearing on Christianity. Darwin, like most men of his time, was a Christian.
Frogs with six legs flopping around in shallow areas of ponds must make an evolutionist proud. Afterall, it is this sort of thing that is responsible for creating every one of us!’
This is a thing that happens… not sure what else to say. How does this devalue evolution?
Long used as an iconic proof of evolution, the peppered moth story goes something like this: “The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus soot).
The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now �stood out�, and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.”
Recently, it has been found that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks but rather under the leaves. But, I bet you can find this “example of evolution in action” right in your own Biology book!’
And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done � dead moths were glued to the tree.’
Although the experiments were not perfect, Kettlewell’s experiments weren’t fatally flawed. He should have released them at night, but release time was a constant in his experiments.
Although no experiment is perfect (nor can be), even imperfect experiments can give supporting or disconfirming evidence. In the case of peppered moths, many experiments have been done, and they all support the hypothesis.
Peppered moths do not rest exclusively on tree trunks, but they do rest there. Of the forty-seven moths one researcher found in the wild, twelve were on trunks and twenty were on trunk/branch joints. The numbers and proportion on trunks near light traps were even higher.
Branches provide a background similar to trunks. Photos showing moths on trunks were staged but only for purposes of illustration – you try taking a good picture of the little buggers. The photographs depict what is found in the wild, whether trunk or branch. Furthermore, the photos played no part in the scientific research or its conclusion.
When people don’t accept evolution, it’s because they must not have had enough education. I mean, obviously. And let’s keep in mind, it was the evolutionists who dislodged and discarded thousands of years of accepted, recorded, HISTORY. So, aren’t we justified then, to refer to them as “Historic Illiterates”?’
Yeah, we dislike people who are scientifically illiterate, but, like children they need to be educated. If you think your bible is historically accurate then it’s you who is historically illiterate.
In order for a quadraped to become a bird, the forelimbs would need to become wings. This would need to be accomplished in very small steps, accomplished through mutations. (Leave aside the fact that the fossil record doesn’t support this.) A front leg, changing into a birds wing, would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. And of course, a bad leg would not make that animal more fit to survive, therefore, natural selection would preserve the species against such deformities. Another fine feathered example of why evolution simply doesn’t fly. They keep on flapping, though.’
Doesn’t support this? You want try that again buster? http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html
‘76.100 Scientists Against PBS
SEATTLE–In an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series “Evolution”, 100 scientists have declared that they “are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” The signers say, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Evidentally, these scientists are also “scientifically illiterate.”’
What? They’re saying be sceptical you loon. Scepticism is science.
“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest- growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.”
“Educators Against Darwin”
Science Digest Special, Winter 1979, pp. 94-96’
Astonishing that a publication called Educators against Darwin would make it seem like the popularity of creationism was growing. I bet they don’t have a dog in this race.
‘78.”Creation” – Response to PBS “Evolution” series
This CD Rom is a refutation of the recently aired PBS evolution propaganda. It must be somewhat unsettling to the peddlers of the theory that over 40,000 of these $5 CD-ROMs have been sold already.’
How does it feel to have the whole world think you’re stupid? Asking for a friend.
A book entitled “In Six Days” is a compilation of the testimonies of 50 scientists, many of whom were former evolutionists, who through their research became completely convinced that the world was created in 6 days, as it says in the Genesis account. Among them, is a geologist who studied under Stephen Jay Gould and literally cut the Bible to pieces before totally rejecting evolution.’
You’ll notice that, as I get more and more board with this, I keep on just adding links instead of my usual loads of text. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cg_in_six_days.htm
I have actually read that even having a “sore back” is proof that evolution ocurred! The story goes that since our primitive, apelike skeleton was really better suited for walking slumped over, dragging knuckles, that standing up is really hard on our spine! When your back aches, it is because you were meant to hunch over! But the funny thing about this, is that the exact opposite is true! Hunching over (bad posture) is credited with giving you a ‘bad’ or sore back. The hiliarious thing about this, is that these are “real scientists” saying this stuff! I suppose that even lizards struggled with sore arms because they were better suited for swimming than for walking about on land!’
Let’s see what a health professional thinks http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/20/why-your-back-feet-hurt-blame-evolution/
What is it about the great artists that makes their work so recognizeable? Is it because they always paint the same thing? Or, is it because no matter what they paint, you can see the character and style of the painter reflected in the finished work? Take Vincent Van Gogh, for example. Instantly recognizeable. Why? The evolutionist would say “well, naturally, his paintings evolved from a singular original painting”. Now we know this is ridiculous, right? So why do they get away with using similiarities found in creatures, such as 5 fingers, 2 eyes, etc., as proof that everything evolved? Couldn’t it also be argued that a creator might use repeated themes and colors on various creatures as he wills it? Some painters prefer oils on canvas. Others prefer pastels. So, when you see a zebra, a butterfly and a fish that all possess the same black and white stripes, remember; it is not proof of ‘common descent’. It just might be proof of a common designer.’
This is literally just rambling nonsense.
We can all agree that the first spark of life if it happened at all in the ‘primordial soup’, was a rare event. Extremely rare. But, supposing it did occur, that first cell had to multiply and divide on it’s own. How on earth did we get the sexes? And if all things happen via various tiny, nearly invisible, even microscopic, mutative changes, how did the first male or female evolve? And in order to reproduce, to carry on his glorious new genetic mutations (those that made him a boy), he would have needed to find a female, who had evolved not the same, but the corresponding sexual organs? So random, chance mutations would have had to happen at the same time! But not just once, remember, every step of the way, from male and female fish all the way up to monkeys and humans! And it’s worse, for this same incredible chance occurrence would have had to happen simultaneously for all of the various sexually reproducing organisms on the earth! And with the odds so stacked against this method of reproduction, couldn’t you argue that the initial way of multiplying and dividing was better? Why evolve toward a more co-dependent form of reproduction? Evolution doesn’t have the answer. The Bible does.’
Boy-howdy, do I hate the sexes. I wish I was a sexless, genderless individual. Oh, wait, we’re not talking about my sexless fantasies.
This might surprise you but there are actually a few stages between male and female – and I’m not talking about the social aspects of it either. The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility, but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against.
‘83.The Burgess Shale
In British Columbia, Canada a large Shale formation which has been determined to be “Cambrian” rock (this is the lowest life-bearing rock in the supposed Geologic Column). At the base of the wonderful tree of life, it was discovered that there was no “trunk”. That is to say, that all major ‘body plans’ are found to be here with out any evolutionary ancestry. This is such an indesputable fact of the fossil record that it has become known as the “cambrian explosion”. So damning is this evidence of life at the very first start, that evolutionist Stephen J. Gould has suggested that perhaps evolution needs to be ‘updated’. (saved is more like it) He proposed the theory of “punctuated equilibria”, where rather than a slow steady uphill climb toward bio-diversity, perhaps it is more like short ‘creative’ spurts, followed by long sustained (non-evolutionary) periods.
Charles Darwin, in the Origin of Species (chapter ten) says:
…the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. …the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.’
The Cambrian period is where we first started getting hard things like bones, shells and teeth. Soft tissue doesn’t fossilize well so no wonder there’s bugger all Precambrian. Those that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals.
‘84.The Human Conscience
If we are all in an evolutionary race to survive and take out competition, why do we feel guilty when we take advantage of others? How did conscience evolve? The rest of the animal kingdom has no such trouble. Monkeys steal, lions kill, snakes devour and sharks chomp away at smaller fish, all without guilt or remorse. Why shouldn’t we do the same? You want something? Take it! Survival of the fittest is the name of the game. No pity for the weak. So how did we get this thing called “humanitarian aid”?’
Firstly; ‘I can fuck this’ is a great motivator for being nice to people, as is ‘I can make that do things for me’.
Secondly, social animals improve their fitness through cooperation with each other. Even if survival of the fittest were taken as a basis for morals, it would imply treating other people well as more individuals in a given population would be fitter.
Still believe in evolution? Well the odds are against even the first cell. Consider this excerpt taken from an article by Don Batten: The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 1080 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours, that would ‘only’ amount to 10160 electrons.
Evolution is a mathematical impossibility. But wait! They know it can happen, because you see, it has!
Do you feel lucky?’
A lot luckier than you, because it would seem I’m not a steaming plate of retard chips and hog shit gravy. We’re not talking about the first cell are we? Evolution doesn’t happen to one cell, it happens to populations.
Was abiogenesis a totally random process? I don’t know. Evolution makes no claims or predictions about it.
Oh, here’s a link that takes a big shit over Batten’s argument http://goodmath.blogspot.co.uk/2006/03/more-bad-probability-cheating-with.html
The male mole cricket has a dandy design feature, which can only be explained as a result of thoughtful planning and design; and a good working knowledge of acoustics. Random evolutionary processes can’t explain this one! When he’s ready to mate, the male mole cricket sticks a pair of horns out of his burrow. The shape of these stereo horns is basically smooth, with an even shape that actually amplifies his mating sound. His two-speaker system also does something else which is quite unusual for living things. It projects sound evenly, in all directions. Because there are two speakers, The female mole cricket is easily able to find the very center of the sound, the burrow itself.
Stereo sound didn’t exist in our civilization until the 20th century! And we had intelligent designers with large brains, working on inventions! (as opposed to tiny insects, with tiny brains who’s advanced features came about by ‘accident’.’
Long story short – no, it really doesn’t have to be designed. Why would a designer not put this in everything if it’s so cool? You may as well say ‘the pistol shrimp can do that cool sonic punch thing, therefore it was designed’ or female mammals emit a pheromone to indicate they are ready to mate, that must have been designed.’ To say things like this is to say, boldly and without shame, that you neither understand evolution nor care to.
Dr. Melvin Cook said that if oil in the earth was as old as Geologist claim, (80 Million years) its pressure would have dissipated long before now. The present pressure of oil indicates not over 10 Thousand years.
Cook, Melvin A., Prehistory and Earth Models, Max Parish and Co., 1966., Chpt. 12-13.
We have been taught that it took millions of years to produce oil. Scientist working in a laboratory, produced a barrel of oil in only 20 minutes.
Machine Design, May 14, 1970.; Chemical Camp; Engineering News, May 29, 1972, p. 14.
The reason this method is not used is because it is simply far too expensive.’
Oil is formed in a high pressure environment and takes a shed load of time (and heat) to form. If it were surrounded by rocks that were not impermeable enough to have formed the pressure seal necessary then the oil wouldn’t have formed in the first place.
Volcanic and tectonic activity change how the ground gets formed, so one earthquake will crack rocks and potentially open new chambers in the earth, allowing oil to flow around – what I’m getting at here is that oil and gas migration can occur relatively recently. Even if the oil field is young, that does not mean the oil, much less the earth, is young.
‘88.HUMAN SKULL #1470
Now, when a Christian scientist finds a human bone or footprint next to a dinosaur, evolutionists cry out “fraud!” Of course, because it would upset everything. But what happens when an acclaimed evolutionist finds the bones? (well, presumably, he doesn’t tell anyone) Human Skull #1470, was dated by evolutionists to be 2.8 Million Years Old. Most text books state that the first man did not appear until One Million Years ago. But the real problem is that the bones are said to be even more modern than Pithecanthropus, Homo Erects, Java Man, Peking Man, and Australopithecus, our presumed man-like ancestors, but by these findings they can not be our ancestors. Richard Leaky, its discoverer said in San Diego. “What we have discovered simply wipes out everything we have been taught about human evolution, and I have nothing to offer in its place.” He doesn’t, but the Bible does.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis Yeah, you don’t know shit.
Fossils themselves are a problem for uniformist thinking. A common misconception about fossils is that they are an organism that died, lay there on the ground for millenia, and was slowly buried with sediment until it became a fossil. The truth is, fossils are a result of rapid, preservative burial, usually involving water, in which an organism is sealed off from predators, scavengers and the effects of decay. How else can you explain fossils of: fish giving birth, eggs unhatched, jellyfish, with their frailest details, etched in stone, feather imprints, fossil footprints, buried before they could wash away, fish in the process of eating other fish.
When an animal dies, if it lies there on the ground, or on the sea floor, it will in all likelyhood, be a meal to a scavenger. And if not, time and weather will destroy it.’
I don’t even know how this one is intended to refute evolution. Fossils, as I’ve said before, are some of our best evidence of evolution.
In 1800, experiments in France were begun to increase the sugar content of table beets, which at that time amounted to 6%. By 1878, the sugar content had been increased to 17%. Further artificial selection failed to increase the sugar content any more. A natural limit had been reached.
Wouldn’t it be troublesome if a creatures said to be dead since near the beginning of time were found living? What trouble would this cause for the assumptions made by historical geology? Well, you aren’t going to believe this. Some folks in the Falkland Islands seem to be indicating that these “long extinct creatures” which are evidence of the former world, millions of years ago, haven’t left the building, so to speak.
Oh look, a cat in the fossil record! Gosh damn, I guess all cats are living fossils. All cats are part of cat ‘kind’ so that means that all cats are the same thing. That’s how this works!
92.Jonathan Wells’ Ten questions
This is a list of questions to ask your biology teacher. Most evolutionists prefer you were unaware of them.
Along with Michael Behe, he is one of the few in the movement with demonstrably legitimate credentials (he has a Ph.D. in biological science). Wells completed the Ph.D. for the sole purpose of “debunking” evolution. Despite his credentials, he has been caught bullshitting or outright lying on many occasions, and his books are generally considered garbage by mainstream science. Wells has also lent his support to the cause of AIDS denialism. http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/10-answers-to-jonathan-wellss-10-questions
93.Rapid Growth Stalactites
Are recent discoveries of fast growing formations in caves proof that in fact millions of years are not needed for the massive formations seen in caves?
The fast-growing stalactites form via processes very different from calcium carbonate stalactites found in limestone caves. Limestone is not soluble in water. When carbon dioxide (from decaying plants in the soil above the cave) mixes with water, it forms a very weak carbonic acid. This turns the calcium carbonate into calcium bicarbonate, which dissolves. When drips are exposed to air in the cave, a little carbon dioxide escapes from them into the atmosphere, which reverses the process and precipitates a small amount of calcium carbonate. The upper average rate for limestone stalactite growth is ten centimeters per thousand years, with lower growth rates outside of tropical areas.
Fast-growing stalactites, on the other hand, either grow from gypsum through an evaporative process, or they form from concrete or mortar. When water is added to concrete, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times more soluble than calcite. The calcium hydroxide absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate.
The time for stalactite growth also has to allow for time for the cave to dissolve in the first place, which is a very slow process, sometimes on the order of tens of millions of years. Then the geological conditions have to change so that the cave is no longer under water. Only then can stalactite growth begin.