Creation Vs Evolution - Page 3
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: Creation Vs Evolution

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    707
    I am sorry but my family didn't evolve from monkeys ...
    Operation Cyberslam
    \"I\'ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.\" Author Unknown
    Microsoft Shared Computer Toolkit
    Proyecto Ututo EarthCam

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    300
    Lets remember one thing posting in this thread. Everyone has the right to think differently. I feel like my views are right, the same way you feel yours are. So it can only end in a flaming war. So please remember when you are replying to touchy subjects to do it with care or you come of hot headed and a little punk that may get negs. (However, sometimes it is necessary to put someone back in their place)

    Adiz

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,429
    Evolutionism does not teach that man evolved from monkeys...
    Evolutionism teaches that man and ape have a common ancestor: about six million years ago, there was an African creature that lead to man (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens) on one hand, and to ape on the other.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Originally posted here by adiz
    Lets remember one thing posting in this thread. Everyone has the right to think differently. I feel like my views are right, the same way you feel yours are. So it can only end in a flaming war. So please remember when you are replying to touchy subjects to do it with care or you come of hot headed and a little punk that may get negs. (However, sometimes it is necessary to put someone back in their place)

    Adiz
    yes and no, every one has the right t obeleive crap if they want to, no one has the right to force crap into our schools and claim it has some link to reality. question for the creationists, there are two contradictory creation stories in genisis..which one is correct?

    some notes
    second law of thermodynamics relates to a closed system, the earth has energy comeing in from the sun, stars, astaroid impacts, therfore not a closed system and the second law dose not apply.

    natural selection is in dispute among scientist...this is difrent from evolution being in dispute it is not.

    this site gives a much fuller rufute to creationism then I have time to write out currently.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CI

    its a rather long page but it dose deal with every creationist claim I have ever heard point by point, if you have any points that are not covered by it feel free to birng them up and I will discuess but I refuse to continue to debate arguments that have been debunked many times (carbon dateing, flood theroy, thermodynamics.)
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Originally posted here by Agent_Steal
    I am sorry but my family didn't evolve from monkeys ...
    In this you are correct monkies are your cousnines not your ancestors, to claim that you evolved from a monkey would be claiming that you are a more highly advanced organism than your average monkey, most monkies would be insulted by this statement.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,147
    I have another question would you guys think it to be wrong if they allowed Creationism to be taught along side Evolution in Public Schools ? Since both Canada and the USA like to brag about how great of a free country they both are.
    Being free countries has nothing to do with allowing Creationism being taught as a science in public schools. Creationism is a christian-centric ideology. In the US, the schools take a non-religious (as far as they can) stance on education. There are parochial schools available for those who just can't deal with "real" science and education.

    You cant be in between because you will eventually hit a fork between the the road ...
    That is a physical and logical impossibility.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    707
    The Ape-Man Similarity is A Fabrication

    The completion of the human's gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they have done with all others.

    As known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project was a very important scientific advance. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the chimpanzee genes bear a 98% similarity to human genes and this is promoted as an evidence for the claim that apes are related to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists who take advantage of the lack of knowledge about this subject in society

    98 % Similarity Claim is a Misleading Propaganda;

    First, it should be stated that the concept of 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced by evolutionists is deceptive.

    In order to claim that the genetic make-up of man and chimpanzee bear a 98% similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped, just like that of man, the two have to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the human gene has been mapped. No such research has yet been done on the chimpanzee.

    In reality, the 98 % similarity between human and chimpanzee genes, which now and then enters the agenda, is a propaganda-oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.

    However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins.

    On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on these 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution.15 However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted.16 Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analysed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %.17


    Human DNA is also Similar to that of the Worm, Mosquito and Chicken!

    Moreover, the above-mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living things. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living creatures, is very similar to that in humans.

    For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man.18 This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and the Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.

    On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the local media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%.19

    In another case, analyses done on some proteins show man as closely linked to some very different living things. In a survey carried out by researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land-dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, human beings and chickens were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was the crocodile.20

    Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man.Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were valid, then man would have an even closer relative than the chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46

    These examples confirm that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolutionary schemes, and on the contrary, yield completely opposite results.

    Genetic Similarities Upset the "Evolution Scheme" that is Sought to be Constituted;

    Unsurprisingly, when the issue is evaluated as a whole, it is seen that the subject of "bio-chemical similarities" does not constitute evidence for evolution, but rather leaves the theory in the lurch. Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemistry researcher from the Medical Faculty of South Carolina University, is an evolutionist scientist who has spent years searching for evidence for evolution in the molecular domain. In particular he carried out research on insulin and relaxin-type proteins and tried to establish evolutionary relationships between living beings. However, he had to confess many times that he could not find any evidence for evolution at any point in his studies. In an article published in a scientific journal, he said;

    Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to palaeontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message.21

    Based on the recent findings obtained in the field of molecular biology, the renowned biochemist Prof. Michael Denton made the following comments;

    Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.

    Similarities are not Evidence for Evolution but for Creation

    It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

    This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their being created upon the same plan.

    It is possible to explain this matter with an example; all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well.

    Life did not originate as the result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the possessor of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

    Conclusion

    Between man and ape, however, there is a tremendous gap, never to be closed by fairy stories. After all, an ape is an animal no different from a horse or a dog in terms of consciousness. Man, however, is a being who has consciousness and will, who can think, talk, reason, decide, and judge. All these qualities are functions of the "spirit" he possesses. The most important difference that causes this huge gap between man and other living beings is this "spirit". No physical resemblance can close this gap between man and other living beings. The only being that has "spirit" in nature is man.

    THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS INVALIDATES
    THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own will tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything living or non-living wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another and according to this law, this unavoidable process has no return.

    This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tyres had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its motor had decayed. The same inevitable process holds true and even more quickly for living things.


    The Law of Thermodynamics holds that natural conditions always lead to disorder. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is an unscientific theory that utterly contradicts with this law.
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined with physical equations and calculations.

    This famous law of physics is also known as "the Law of Entropy". Entropy is the range of the disorder involved in a system in physics. A system's entropy is increased as it moves towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned state from an ordered, organised, and planned one. The higher a system's disorder, the higher is its entropy. The Law of Entropy holds that the entire universe unavoidably proceeds towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganised state.

    The validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Entropy, is experimentally and theoretically established. The most important scientists of our age agree on the fact that The Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, said that it is the "premier law of all of science". Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe".1

    Evolutionary theory is an assertion that is advanced by totally ignoring this basic and universally true law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts this law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and inorganic atoms and molecules spontaneously came together in time in a certain order and plan to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA after which they gradually brought about millions of different living species with even more complex structures. According to the evolutionary theory, this supposed process that yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised structure at each stage has formed all by itself under natural conditions. The Law of Entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.

    Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J.H. Rush states:

    In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.2

    The evolutionist scientist Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science:

    One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.3

    Another evolutionist scientist, George Stravropoulos states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life and the unfeasibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist magazine American Scientist:

    Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it is, and the more assured, sooner or later, is its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and life itself, despite confused or deliberately confusing language, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science.4

    As acknowledged, the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution in terms of both science and logic. Unable to put forth any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only defeat it in their imagination. For instance, the famous evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":

    The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.5

    These words very well indicate that evolution is totally a dogmatic belief.


    THE MYTH OF THE "OPEN SYSTEM"

    Confronted by all these truths, evolutionists have had to take refuge in a mangling of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, saying that it holds true only for "closed systems" and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law.

    An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy matter flow in and out, unlike a "closed system", in which the initial energy and matter remains constant. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply for the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.

    However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs a motor, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in gasoline to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy in gasoline.

    The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

    As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on its own.

    The influx of solar energy into the world has no effect that would on its own bring order. No matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is not enough to make amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins or for proteins to form the much complex and organised structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this organization at all levels is conscious design: in a word, creation.


    THE "CHAOS THEORY" EVASION

    Quite aware that the Second Law of Thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to close the gap between the two so as to render evolution possible. As usual, even those endeavours show that the theory of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.

    One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine.

    Starting out from the Chaos Theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order forms from chaos (disorder). Despite his best efforts however, Prigogine has been unable to pull off the wedding. This is clearly seen in what he says:

    There is another question, which has plagued us for more than a century: What significance does the evolution of a living being have in the world described by thermodynamics, a world of ever-increasing disorder?6

    Prigogine, who knows quite well that theories at the molecular level are not applicable to living systems, such as a living cell, stresses this problem: The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.7

    This is the point most recently arrived at by Chaos Theory and related speculations. No concrete outcome has been attained that would support or verify evolution or eliminate the contradiction between evolution, entropy, and other physical laws.

    Despite all these evident facts, evolutionists try to take refuge in simple subterfuges. Plain scientific truths show that living things and the ordered, planned, and complex structures of living things could in no way have come into being by coincidence under normal circumstances. This situation makes it clear that the existence of living beings can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from nothing. Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation.

    One very important question for people who believe in Evolution Read below::

    ""How Did The DNA Originate ???? """
    Operation Cyberslam
    \"I\'ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.\" Author Unknown
    Microsoft Shared Computer Toolkit
    Proyecto Ututo EarthCam

  8. #28
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Hey mon, we be mappin monkies mon. I am curious to see in 2 to 3 years what the map looks like. It's anticipation just like the Jupitor probe and mars probes. The wait for results no matter what outcome they provide. Personally you could give evidence that Dr. Frankestein made me in a test tube, I still look at the galaxies and nebula's and go - wow those things are vastly far far away. Even in our own galxy, the spiral arms take 150 million years just to rotate.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    3,747
    Supposedly we are suppose to evolve right? we are suppose to become stronger, better, faster, and more sutitable to our enviroment. However, why is it that we have never seen evidence of evolution? I mean sure we saw some bones hear and there, but what does that prove? Evolution is pretty much based on one mans idea and thats it. Evolution cannot be proved by science.
    =

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,130
    Neither can creation.


    Hey, what if evolution was the creation?
    Government is like fire - a handy servant, but a dangerous master - George Washington
    Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. - George Washington.

    Join the UnError community!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides