Posted on 02/14/2009 10:55:11 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.
(Snip)
The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.
(Snip)
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.
(Snip)
The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally toward disorder or chaos, unless changed by an intelligent being.
(Excerpt) Read more at biblelife.org ...
“Why do people from higher-latitudes generally have light skin? Have you ever heard of Vitamin D”
What utter nonsense. You say white people are white because of vitamin D?
Can a magnetic field do work (energy) on another object or field? Of course, the answer is yes. Grab a magnet, put it on a table, and put a steel ball bearing nearby. Does the magnet attract the ball bearing? If so, then it took energy (joules) to do that work.
Don't continue to dig this hole that you've already dug yourself into.
“I said that I have problems with evolution that are scientific”
So if you agree why are you dropping harsh comments all over the thread?
“Does the magnet attract the ball bearing? If so, then it took energy (joules) to do that work”
You did that work by putting the things there and magnetizing the magnet. Just like raising an object to a height and dropping it on your foot. The gravity temporarily stored the energy, it does not EQUAL energy.
Please, stop demeaning your education by trying to equate magnetic field density with energy any further. You were wrong and rash in your statement. Just learn to live with it & move on.
“Do I take you seriously or just believe that you’re being a smart-aleck? I choose the latter because I’m a smart-aleck, too. :-)”
Ah, another member of the club as it were! :)
Your understanding of yom is incomplete. It is more well defined than the English “day” in fact. Your gripe against the literal view is something you should take up with 3500 years of Judaism. Every Jewish child knows a yom is from sunset to sunrise... Always.
Every single sentence is based on false assumptions so I’ll discuss the first part of the site first.
“The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the “survival of the fittest” theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs.”
You would be interested to know that Darwin wrote his 1842 monograph on this very subject. To make a long discussion short, here is a summary of Darwin’s theory of evolution (reference Fututma et al):
1. Evolution as such is the proposition that the characteristics of lineages of organisms change over time.
2. Common descent. Species diverged from common ancestors and that all of life could be portrayed as one great family tree. (hint: cats and dogs are much diverged)
3. Gradualism. The differences between even radically different organisms.
4. Population change. Evolution occurs by changes in the proportions of individuals within a population that have different inherited characteristics.
5. Natural Selection. Changes in the proportions of different types of individuals are caused by differences in their ability to survive and reproduce- and that such changes result in the evolution of adaptations, features that appear designed to fit organisms to their environment.
“The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits.”
The word is “recessive” and the discovery and study of DNA has rendered the terms “dominance” and “recessiveness” too simple to be useful. Did you know that the “dominant” trait for humans is 6 fingers, not 5? ;)
“Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit.”
What is a “DNA limit”?
“DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.”
It goes without mentioning that DNA changes plenty but that might not be what the author means to say here. The author seems to be saying that DNA changes cannot result in speciation by natural selection. That is true. Natural selection alone does not necessarily result in speciation. The most accpeted modern biological species concept is the following by Ernst Mayer (1942):
“Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
Also, as in the case of ring species, they need not be 100% reproductively isolated. Also some important things to consider:
1. Variation within populations. Characteristics vary among the members of a single population of interbreeding individuals. For example, the white and blue forms of the snow goose, known to be born to the same mother, represent a genetic polymorphism, not different species. A mutation that causes a fruit fly to have four wings rather than two is just that: a mutation, not a new species.
2. Geographic variation. Populations of a species differ; there exists a spectrum from slight to great difference; and intermediate forms, providing evidence of interbreeding, are often found where such populations meet. Human populations are a conspicuous example.
3. Sibling species. Sibling species are reproductively isolated populations that are difficult or impossible to distinguish by morphological features, but which are often recognized by differences in ecology, behavior, chromosomes, or other such characters.
The speciation (origin of two species from a common ancestral species) consists of the evolution of biological barriers to gene flow.
“Evolution not a scientific law and no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way.”
Yes, that’s true. Evolution is not a law but a theory and nothing in science is ever absolutely proven. A theory has a very high confidence because of massive evidence (raw data) in its favor and the absence of contradictory evidence. Evolution could be completely wrong but it doesn’t look that way at this point in science’s history.
“In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.”
We cannot wield all the powers of God. Does that mean that God does not exist?
I’ll write more later. Let me know if you have any questions.
“Every single sentence is based on false assumptions [...] “Evolution not a scientific law and no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way.”
Yes, that’s true.
“
A contradiction. So your first statement was just hyperbole; falsehood, intended to mislead & distort?
No, not really. I said they were based on false assumptions, not that they were all wrong.
I’m not an “evolutionist” trying to defend evolution through lies. If I used confusing language then I simply made a mistake.
“The stats on rejection of macroevolution after high school are rather impressive, too.
It’s also not hard to see why.”
Ok, where are the stats? I’d be amused to see them.
Thanks, I guess, for posting the stupidest attack on evolution I’ve ever seen. That page is a real carnival of belligerent ignorance. You can dip in anywhere and find a statement that’s just flat-out wrong. It’s really an impressive achievement.
38% of Americans accept the Theory of Evolution, and only 14% strongly agree, according to several surveys, RFEngineer. 30% of Republicans accept it.
A cursory search via your favorite search engine will show numbers to this effect. I prefer Dogpile, but you no doubt prefer Google. Go for it.
But, back to the various survey results, this is after nearly 100% exposure, mandatory exposure, for those attending public schools.
I’d say that’s rather impressive. Unless, that is, you give more credence to Southern Baptists and their survey, than to National Geographic, etcetera. Or, unless you believe this 88% rejected Christianity entirely, and became atheist, dogmatic ToE adherents.
You prefer "big bangs" and lightning bolts, and think these aren't your pejorative "poofs?"
You picks yer poofs and you takes yer chances, I guess.
“38% of Americans accept the Theory of Evolution, and only 14% strongly agree, according to several surveys, RFEngineer. 30% of Republicans accept it.”
You said “macroevolution”, not Theory of Evolution. I want to see the poll where Americans are polled using the term “macroevolution”.
I think it would go something like this “Do you want to burn in hell for all eternity, or do you deny macroevolution?”
“A cursory search via your favorite search engine will show numbers to this effect. I prefer Dogpile, but you no doubt prefer Google. Go for it.”
I’m sure this is a very clever, somehow. forgive me if I’m simply not getting it.
“But, back to the various survey results, this is after nearly 100% exposure, mandatory exposure, for those attending public schools.”
Well, most schools do teach science.
“I’d say that’s rather impressive. Unless, that is, you give more credence to Southern Baptists and their survey, than to National Geographic, etcetera. Or, unless you believe this 88% rejected Christianity entirely, and became atheist, dogmatic ToE adherents.”
Oh, I’m getting it now....Google, Nat’l Geographic..... Of course, I didn’t comment on that, so your wit, such as it is, falls short a bit.
As for 88% - I believe the statement was Evangelical Christianity was rejected, not Christianity in general. I didn’t even comment on that, but if you asked, I would.
I agree. I’ve also heard that the Hebrew word does not necessarily mean “day,” although I’ve had discussions with a fundamentalist friend who insists that it does.
Macroevolution is where science veers head-on into theology, RFEngineer. If you want to be specific as to polling language, I honestly do not know if there has ever been any poll done to that effect. But, you know as well as I, that this is where the conflict arises. Ergo, this is the source of opposition, as identified via the polling cited by multiple sources.
The Book of Genesis is full of profound meaning, but many of these fundamentalist-literalists can't find the woods for the trees. What is important about the Garden story is not that a snake talked, or that a literal Adam and Eve lived in a physical garden in India, or Ethiopia, or wherever some people think it was. It tells us how Satan and temptation usually work: Not through threats and brute force, but with soothing language which plays on our hopes, fears and weaknesses. (Sounds like 0bama, doesn't it?) It tells us that man is incorrigibly, hereditarily prone to evil, and sin is deadly, but that God will provide a remedy in due time. It tells us that we are free moral agents, ("knowing good and evil"), unlike animals. (Even most evo-fanatics realize that people are fundamentally mentally unlike animals, even apes.)
I was fortunate enough to receive a good education in literature, where I was taught that great truths about the human condition can be conveyed by good fiction. I was shown how to read through all the narrative filler, character and plot details, etc. and find the meat, the deeper meaning. Whatever else the Bible is, it is great literature. The Book of Job, for example, is full of pages of poetic detail, but it really conveys simple fundamental truths about man's condition and relation to God, like 1) It's wrong to blame God for your misfortune or question his actions. There are things affecting us which are beyond the ability of human intelligence to comprehend. (Interestingly, atheists always challenge theists with Pharisaical questions like: "If God is good and infinitely powerful, why does he allow evil?" I would like to say to them: "That's not your business. Your business is to control your own behavior and show love toward others.") 2) Bad things happen to good people. Satan loves to pick on good people. (Basically, Satan in Job is saying man is not a moral agent capable of sincere love, but an animal who likes those who treat him well. That's precisely the kind of cynicism and behaviorism which Marxists and radical materialists like Skinner and Dawkins preach.) 3) Again, God will provide relief in due time.
Jesus, of course, told lots of stories which were clearly fictional, about generic kings, fathers and sons, etc. They were no less true because they did not refer to specific literal people.
It's interesting how the church in Galileo believed that the sun revolved around the earth and proved it using scriptures.
Your quote is the number one reason why Christians who were taught the Young-Earth theory from childhood go to college and lose their faith.
Your fundamentalist friend is wrong and if they did a simple Google into the meaning of the word "yom" would prove that. I'm not slamming all fundamentalists -- I consider myself something of a fundamentalist, too -- but so many of them don't know the Bible as well as they think and have a strong anti-intellectual bent.
Here is part of a post that I wrote a week or two ago. Some of it doesn't apply to this thread because it was originally directed to a Freeper who posted an absolutely ludicrous paper and called it science, even though any real scientist would just look at it and laugh.
I am using Genesis 1:5 as the example text because the remainder of the "days" are identical:
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. (Genesis 1:5)
I only studied Hebrew for a year and I freely admit that I am not even conversant, much less fluent. However, one of the things that is immediately obvious to the newest of students is that Hebrew has less words than English. That is why so many Hebrew words have multiple meanings.
ערב `ereb means evening. It can also mean ending or closing as well as other things. For my Orthodox friends, erev shabbat means pretty much anything after Friday lunch, but it especially refers to the hour before Sabbath begins, when all sorts of arrangments have to be made to prepare for the Sabbath.
בקר boqer means morning. It can also refer to beginning.
שני sheniy is an ordinal number meaning second.
יום yowm has a multitude of meanings (we'll assume now for the sake of YEC folks that it means a literal, 24-hour day.
The literal Hebrew translation says "evening, morning, a second day."
It could also just as well mean: "ending, beginning, a second period of time."
The YEC insistence on yom meaning a literal 24-hour day is just plain wrong.
Note that yom does not use the definite article the. It does not mean the second day (hayyom sheniy), but rather a second day (yom sheniy). For what it's worth, my career over the past several years has changed so that the bulk of my time is spent writing about technical subjects rather than actually performing technical tasks. The presence or absence of a definite article may not mean a lot to some people, but it does to writers. More about this later.
Note also that the creation story includes ordinal numbers describing each "day." More about this later, too.
The Hebrew definition of yom
Now for the word study on yom. According to Strong's Concordance, it has these meanings:
1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
These definitions are agreed upon by Christian and Jewish scholars alike.
A few of many examples where yom does not mean a literal 24-hour day
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (yom) that the Lord God made earth and heaven. (Genesis 2:4)
So did God create the earth in one day or six? Is the Bible wrong or are YECs interpreting yom wrongly?
In the course of time (yom) Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. (Genesis 4:3)
Here, yom is referring to a period of time.
Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel forty years (yom). (I Kings 11:42)
So did Solomon reign for forty 24-hour days or forty years? In this verse, yom means year.
Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days (yom) to come it may be an everlasting witness. (Isaiah 30:8)
The Bible used the word yom to mean forever.
I myself will guarantee his safety; you can hold me personally responsible for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him here before you, I will bear the blame before you all my life (yom). (Genesis 43:9)
Here, yom means a lifetime or, in quite a few translations, forever. This year, I'm doing the Bible in a Year program by having portions emailed to me each day and listening to it on an MP3 player that my wife gave me for Christmas. I believe that staying in God's word is critical for the Christian life. I heard Genesis 43:9 last week and, to my ears, it sounds like forever best fits the context.
Now I stayed on the mountain forty days (yom) and nights, as I did the first time (yom)... (Deuteronomy 10:10)
In this verse, yom means a literal 24-hour day in one place and 40 days in another place.
The scientific evidence for an old universe and old earth
This is too vast of a subject to cover. The simple fact is that all of the scientific evidence points to an earth that is about 4.5 billion years old and a universe that is between 14 and 15 billion years old. Here are just a few examples of very wrong Young-Earth Creationist myths:
Radiometric decay could have been faster in the past: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Someone brought this up on a previous thread. I and others responded that if radioactive decay in not generally linear (there are some well-known and well-studied exceptions), then it would have had to have been many orders of magnitude larger 6,000 years. Guess what happens when radioactive decay is very fast? A nuclear bomb!
Polonium halos prove that that the earth is young: Wrong.
The earth's magnetic field is declining and proves the earth is young: Wrong. The geological evidence proves that the earth's magnetic field has flipped many times in the past.
The recession of the moon proves a young earth: Wrong.
Growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The article that GGG referred to in this post claims this. It's simply not true. Yes, there are disagreements, but most are relatively minor. Just as Einstein improved upon Newton's theory of physics, scientists will certainly improve on the Big Bang Theory. It is extremely unlikely that it will be thrown out.
The speed of light used to be faster: Wrong.
Helium diffusion rates prove the earth is young: Wrong. Russell Humphreys is a hero to YECs. Yet he so badly misrepresents evidence and data that he has become a laughingstock. Now, GGG will tell you that Hugh Ross is afraid to debate Humphreys. The very opposite is true. Humphreys refuses to debate in front of an audience that includes trained scientists. Why do you suppose that may be?
There are no authenticated reports of meteorites embedded in sedimentary material: Wrong.
The sun is shrinking, proving that the earth is young: Wrong.
The Hebrew word yom combined with an ordinal always refers to a 24 hour day: Wrong. "Zechariah 14:7 contains the word yom combined with an ordinal (number one, echad), exactly as seen in Genesis 1:5." This fits with my observation that YECs understand the Bible about as much as they understand science. They have to create new (and demonstably false) theories about Hebrew grammar to fit with their belief about yom meaning a 24-hour day in the creation account.
Summary
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. (Psalm 19:1)
As I pointed out in an earlier post, there were three untruths in the very first sentence of the article posted by GGG. Were these untruths intentional or unintentional? Given the fact that virtually every YEC article I've read either mistates the evidence, makes claims that contradict known facts, and has a title that is patently untrue, I have to believe that the majority are lying and they know it. I'll grant you that some are merely misinformed or ignorant, but if I posted an article saying that new evidence proves that the earth is not spherical, would you think that I was lying or merely lacking in understanding?
God speaks to us through general revelation in his creation, and through special revelation in his word. All truth is God's truth. He does not lie to us through his creation any more than he lies to us in the Bible.
As I showed above, Young-Earth Creationists would have you believe that God is lying to us through his creation. Why? In order to fit their medieval interpretation that "day" as used in the first two chapters of Genesis has to mean a literal 24-hour period. In the first part of this post, I pointed out the absence of the definite article the in the Hebrew. A literal translation goes something like this:
On day one, God created...
On a second day, God created...
On a third day, God created...
Because of the lack of the definite article, the Bible does not indicate that the days were consecutive. Much time could have passed between "day" three and "day" four. Again, this is consistent with scientific observations.
You hit the nail on the head, Hellbender. While I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve, I also believe, as you do, that there is a deeper meaning behind the story. C.S. Lewis called this the mythic element. You understand literature and you know that calling something a myth does not imply that it did not happen. It simply means that there is more meaning to the story than just the facts. Many of the fundamentalists insist on a wooden, hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible that ignores the deeper meaning behind a mere recitation of facts.
Jesus spoke in parables and, while the parables contains deep truth, some of them may not have literally happened. That doesn't make the parables any less true.
For what it's worth, I do not doubt that Jesus and other Biblical performed real miracles. However, most of the miracle stories involve more than just a recounting of history. The story of the centurion and the woman who touched Jesus' cloak come to mind.
I'm certainly glad that you're on this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.