The Vanishing Case for Evolution

ICR ^ | February 12, 2009 | Henry Morris, Ph.D.*

[Buck W.]

OK. I am a devout Christian and I believe that the Bible is allegorical on that point. God gave us substantial intellectual capacity, and I believe that He would be sorely disappointed if we didn’t try to ascertain his actual method.

[Blood of Tyrants]

A study of DNA shows that it has methods to replicate itself faithfully and to resist mutations. So far there has not been a single bit proof ANYWHERE that evolution actually exists. God created and He created all. He did not need hundreds of millions of years to “evolve” His creatures to what they are today.

[wolf78]

A study of DNA shows that it has methods to replicate itself faithfully and to resist mutations.

If you refer to a study, name it. Because the bulk of recent studies says the opposite:

Evolution revolution: Pace is speeding up

So far there has not been a single bit proof ANYWHERE that evolution actually exists.

Wrong. Many viruses have such a high replication rate (especially in combination with high numbers) that you can literally monitor their genetic evolution. And that's just one example.

God created and He created all. He did not need hundreds of millions of years to “evolve” His creatures to what they are today.

Yeah, except for those cloned sheep and the mice that glow in the dark... those weren't really part of the plan, now were they ;) ??

[Blood of Tyrants]

Who was talking to you?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Buck W.]

Thank you. Have a nice day.

[Cedric]

I'll take that as a yes.

{And it was the GOP successfully wooing “bible thumpers” which coincided with its escape from permanent minority status.}

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

If by scientists you mean religious zealot followers of evolution who use the government to force their religion on people, then I agree with you.

In examining the history of Darwinian "science" it's incredible how bad the drek is that gets passed off as science. You should read some of Ernst Haekel's stuff. He won the Darwin Medal. By no means is it an isolated example. There's Darwin's Pangenesis which inspired Lysenko and resisted experimental refutation, Osborn's tetrakinetic theory, Davenport's fake genetics, Galton-Pearson racial phrenology (proves that blacks are closer to apes, etc.) and their screwed-up biometric theory of heredity, Bathybius, Pildown Man, monistic philosophy posturing as science... and a 50-year long scientific fraud called Eugenics. Man, the list goes on and on. For example look at this tripe science: Creation by Evolution and note the massive credentials behind all the names. It's worth downloading.

[Fichori]

“I’m sorry to see this stuff here. This is a policial site, not a religious one.”

You couldn't be more wrong.

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

[count-your-change]

Sure. As long as Christianity is willing to surrender.

[count-your-change]

Darwinism has to go here as the Fiction site is filled up with transitional forms and slime pools. And the Darwinist get all uppity when they go to the Religion site, so......

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:

Do you support spreading lies and misinformation?

GGG: I think maybe LeGrande does support the spreading of lies and misinformation, at least if it's him doing the spreading.

He claims that when you look at the sun, it's actually not where you see it but 2.1 degrees ahead of where it appears because the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes the sunlight to reach the earth..
(See here and here)


Now if the sun orbited the earth, SURE - the sun would indeed move 2.1 degrees by the time its light reached the earth, and the apparent position would be 2.1 degrees behind the actual position. But the earth is rotating at 360 degrees per 24 hours - not being orbited by the sun once every 24 hours.

(Also see my post here for a summarization of some of LeGrande's poor scientific understanding.)

I maintain that the sun will appear within about 20 arcseconds of where it actually is for an observer on earth -- and the 20 arcseconds displacement is due to the observer's transverse velocity of about 67K miles/hour as the earth flies through space on its yearly journey around the sun. (See Stellar Aberration)

And furthermore, LeGrande has heretofore refuse to answer some questions which I've asked him. They are simple questions, and I believe if he would apply his theory to them, he'd see the error in his way - but he refuses to answer them!

The problem of course is if it is true that the sun is lagged by 2.1 degrees between where you see it and where it is, then all the sudden Pluto, which can be up to 6.8 light hours away, will be lagged about 102 degrees -- in otherwords, not even really in the night sky when we look up and see it.

And a lot of other problems arise as well. I think he must know he's wrong because he refuses to answer some simple questions. But on the other hand, he insists that he's right.

Furthermore, so far I haven't found a evolutionist atheistic who'll join me in saying that "Yeah, LeGrande's wrong and he's got to know he's wrong." It seems they won't challenge their brother in their faith, even when they know they are wrong!

And I suspect that this is why science education is today in such shambles - because all the atheistic evolutionist teachers and professors know that their story doesn't hold water and they know eachother is lying but they refuse to speak up about the lies because they are being told by their own "kind."

Below are the questions which LeGrande heretofore refuses to answer. I have color coded them for ease.

So this is a call out to anyone who thinks that either I'm wrong or that LeGrande is wrong and that he's spreading lies and misinformation. This is also a call out to any atheistic evolutionist who has the guts to challenge LeGrande on his integrity for maintaining his untrue claims and yet refusing to apply them to simple questions.

The fact is that(see my earlier link) LeGrande does often call people liars and he himself makes scientific claims that aren't true.

(Oh, did I mention that LeGrande has heretofore provided not one single scientific source that supports his claimed 2.1 degrees for difference between actual and apparent position of the sun.)

-Jesse

The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Green question: Pluto

For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Blue question: if the sun were 10 light days away

If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Yellow question: Turntable at north pole tracking the sun

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable (and its pointer) is tracking and pointing at the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds")
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Lavender question: 17 minute merry go around tilted toward Polaris

Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Aqua question: 17 minute day vs 17 minute merry go around revolution.

You said that If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its real position.

But then you say that if I was on a merry go around that was turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, and the sun appeared on the horizon, the sun's apparent position would not be 180 degrees displaced from its actual position.

So how come, by your theory, would the earth's hypothetical rotational rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, for an observer on earth at an instant in time, cause the sun's gravitational pull and light to come from opposite directions from eachother, when for an observer on a merry go around turning at the same rate, it would not?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

[LeGrande]

GGG: I think maybe LeGrande does support the spreading of lies and misinformation, at least if it's him doing the spreading.

mrjesse and GodGunsGuts will you please not post to me or about me. Thanks : )

[GodGunsGuts]

When is the last time I posted to you or about you LeGrande?

[GodGunsGuts]

PS Your fuss over mrjesse’s questions prompted me to carefully read the same. I have no idea what prompted his questions, but they do seem straightforward enough. Why won’t you answer them? If you don’t know the answer, why not just plead ignorance and ask mrjesse to answer them for you?

[mrjesse]

Regarding the evidence for ASBE (All Species By Evolution), when I first came to FR I tried to find out just what the best evidence was.

I said “What must I do to know that ASBE is true without having to merely rely on faith in people about something I’ve never seen.”

And indeed, there was no answer able to be provided. It seems there is nothing that I can do so that I will know ASBE to be true for myself rather then just having faith in other people.

And I also know that people tend to believe it and preach it as true even though they don’t know much about science to begin with. To the average person, ASBE is no more then a faith.

Since I grew up fascinated with the physical sciences (like electronics and physics) I’m used to not having to know stuff by pure faith. I know that electrical current flows on conductors because I’ve done the experiment. I know that an LED lets out magic smoke if you overdrive it because I’ve done it. I’m used to things making sense in science.

But then along comes ASBE - and my response is “Hey, I grew up on the farm. I know that a calf rarely looks identical to its parents. So it changed - there’s evolution. That’s the kind I can see for myself. But the other kind - that cows and dogs are related, I cannot see. And nobody can show me.”

I had started out with the assumption that those who believe in ASBE are smart (which is I’m sure often true) and that they wouldn’t believe something that they couldn’t prove while calling it scientific fact (usually not true) — but I came to the conclusion that it is to them a faith, although they rarely admit it.

Why should I have to at best believe a point in science? Why should I accept as fact something that nobody’s ever seen?

If I can see it and recreate the experiment, then great. But if it’s never been seen and I can’t know it myself, then it becomes a whole different realm of science - that of faith in it.

And lately I’ve been finding that one ASBE’er will allow another to knowingly intentionally lie without confronting them about it. The truth matters to them far less then they pretend when they complain about us being anti-scientific.

But that is exactly the problem that is predicted by the Bible for people who do not fear God, for people that say God doesn’t exist, for people who say there is no such thing as absolute or universal right or wrong.

On the flip side, anyone who asks for proof of evolution is almost certain to be giving a link to a US government website which has over 93 thousand scientific articles which are alleged to prove evolution. (Of course the few that I read didn’t. But I digress.) But what this does prove is that the concept of survival of the fittest government research project DOES work: Those projects which try to support evolution are more fit and they multiply.

So I ask this, considering how much money the government has thrown behind research aimed at proving ASBE, how much money can be thrown behind an idea before it’s nearly impossible to tell whether the theory lives off of the money or lives off of the evidence? A theory needs only good evidence or lots of money to live - not both!

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Science is not about proof, it is about falsification.

How would you falsify that theory?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

It may not prove that a god does not exist, but Human Evolution certainly seeks to prove that the literal Genesis is false. That's why atheists can't get enough of it. They love it because it's against what they hate, not because it makes sense, has any proof whatsoever, or is even sound science. It's a theory that opposes the Christian's God; therefor, it is acceptable and must be forced on the masses by government.

Another reason that it provides a vehicle for teaching the detestable and pernicious Malthus population principle as a fact to unsuspecting public-school students. I am sure that if educators decided to tell you upfront that "from now on we are going to teach the Malthus principle as a fact in all public-school biology classes" there would be an immense public opposition to it. And rightly so. But the truth of the Malthus principle is precisely the thing which natural selection presupposes. And so, your kid comes out of evolution class with Malthusianism firmly implanted in his brain for the rest of his life.

[LeGrande]

When is the last time I posted to you or about you LeGrande?

I don't know. When did you post this?

GGG: I think maybe LeGrande does support the spreading of lies and misinformation, at least if it's him doing the spreading.

If it was just made up I apologize, and if that is the case I would be happy to have you post to me : )

[LeGrande]

PS Your fuss over mrjesse’s questions prompted me to carefully read the same. I have no idea what prompted his questions, but they do seem straightforward enough. Why won’t you answer them? If you don’t know the answer, why not just plead ignorance and ask mrjesse to answer them for you?

I have answered the questions many times. This topic started over 6 months ago and is now several hundred posts long. Mrjesse follows from thread to thread and I have grown bored with it and told him so.