Jump to content


The History of the Universe


Do you believe evolution or intelligent design occured?  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe evolution or intelligent design occured?

    • Evolution
    • Intelligent design
    • Don't have a clue

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by C'jais

Actually, there have been run several experiments, even high school level ones, where organic molecules formed from inorganic material with the aid of a single jolt of electricity, much as the early conditions were about 4 billion years ago.

Really? I have serious doubts of that. Sources?

And, when I asked for that kind of proof earlier you said:


Originally posted by C'jais

You and I both know full well that it's downright impossible to re-create the scenario of life developing from inorganic materials. It'd require conditions on this earth that does not exist anymore, and a few billion years. I don't have that.


But neither can you re-create any miracle to prove God.


So apparently you have a contridiction in what you use as "proof" do you just make this stuff up to try to argue?:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Psydan

So apparently you have a contridiction in what you use as "proof" do you just make this stuff up to try to argue?:rolleyes:


There's a difference between organic compounds/molecules and a recreating strand of RNA. As for sources, I have none on this part, but it's really no big feat considering that nucleic acid is very simple in its construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by C'jais

There's a difference between organic compounds/molecules and a recreating strand of RNA. As for sources, I have none on this part, but it's really no big feat considering that nucleic acid is very simple in its construction.


If you're talking about making nucleic acid... its already an organic compound. If you're talking about making RNA and DNA, that would require thousands of nucliec acids, carbons and a few other organic molucules. Very unlikely at a highschool level, even professional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nucleic Acid: Make up of thousands of nucleotides. A nucleotide contains a phosphate group, a five carbon sugar (ribose in the case of RNA), and one of 4 nitrogenous bases.


Organic Molecule: Basically anything that has carbon, with the exceptions of carbon dioxide and carbon-hydrogen


Not really on topic, but I thought I might as well inform the younger folk who haven't learned about that yet..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by C'jais


Retard is an IQ of 90 or lower last time I checked. I'm not certain of that, but I am certain he's schizophrenic. He's delusional. He sees things that do not exist. He lives in a fantasy world. By the sheer dictionary definition, he's schizophrenic and mentally ill.



Jack probably isn't crazy, he's just a money hungry bastard who likes propoganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

I tried to, but you said I wasn't allowed to...because it makes my statements un-touched.


Lie. I said it would be bad etiquette to do so.


You got what you asked for.


I still have not seen any evidence of me "insulting" you.


I never called you stupid either.... yet another lie. Look it up what I said.



Now, Cjais ,who was insulting what I said, by using a sarcastic answer


Lie. The answer was not sarcastic. You just didn't get it.


I was just stating something I saw in the news, and you start attacking me.


Lie. I never attacked you, unless disproving your "evidence" constitutes an attack on you as a person.


I wasn't using it to DEBATE ANYTHING.


Lie. The moment you step into this debate and start slinging evidence around, you are debating.


"Evo is TRUE to there!"


Lie. Putting words in my mouth. Not true. False.


Umm, that isn't debate....it would be just like me saying Creation is true, so there. You can't debate by saying your side is absolutely true...it wouldn't hold squat in a debate at all.


Yet another lie. I never said evolution was the truth.


The term "Christian" isn't always what some people mean. Awhile back, any Catholic was called a Christian, for example.


The "Christian" most of us are talking about are the true Christians. The ones who believe in God, Christ's blood, and the Holy Trinity.


This is not so much a direct lie, since you don't have any idea what you're talking about: Anyone who believes in Christ is a Christian. Catholics are Christians, in fact, they were there before the protestantic church. You're going up against the English language with your ethnocentric views and a ton of prejudice of refusing to see other sections of Christianity, much as Skitzo once tried to do. I won't hold. While you can argue that you are the "true" Christians, you cannot deny that Catholics have their right to call themselves Christians as well.


There's no "I'm just dropping by, don't bother replying to my posts"-immunity here, that renders your statements invulnerable.


This is what I said to you. I did not tell you you couldn't leave. Which makes your postulation an outright lie and vindicates myself. Well done.


What I said was that it's bad form to tell people at the end of your post that we can't reply to your post since you're just "dropping by".


I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless


Lie. Since there's proof the earth is older than the Biblical timescale, your theory collapses.


okay. I hope you actually read whatI say instead of putting words in my mouth this time.


Lie. I did no so such thing. You, on the other hand, just did by stating this. Bravo.


Check my posts, I said I was dropping by and saying that the debate is pointless.


You were in this debate from page 2. You have continually said throughout it that you were "just dropping by". You've been "dropping by" for 5 pages now.


All this "discussion" has done is make a moderator directly attack and insults someone elses belief.


Lie. I never directly attacked or insulted anyone's beliefs.


I can't believe you don't know how the human reproduction system works


Lie. Never have I expressed my knowledge (or lack there of) of the human reproductive system.



You just keep pulling lie, after lie, after lie.


Now, lying I never did. Show me where I lied. The three examples you gave me before were not of me lying.


I'm out of here, I hate people who lie just to try to bring down others. Worst moderator I've seen in jk2.


Let me congratulate you on your way out that you've been the most hypocritical man I've ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Karsec

You say your and your alone is correct, and his is useless. Doesnt that mean inferior? Lesser than, not as useful, pointless, should I go on


Please do. Feel free to argue that his beliefs have ever aided scientific research. That they have ever predicted something. That they can be used to prove something through empirical evidence.


That they're in any way useful beyond making people feel good about themselves, and justifying genocides and insanity.


and Rp, if the mod isnt smart enough to get what you saying, that his own dumb fault. Still, dont keep repeating the same message, because I dont think the mod will ever get ti in his thick skull.


Why thank you. I'm about to stop trying to spoon feed you up to a maturity level where it's possible to debate something without going after the man. Try going for argument next time. If you can't work your way around it, don't dodge the subject and start cursing at that person who said it. Now leave, if you've got nothing intelligent to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now people, listen closely.


Anything further regarding people lying, I won't hear it - take it to the moderators. I will delete any posts from now on that doesn't deal with the thread topic.


In this forum, lying is considered spam, and should be taken to the moderators. You don't respond to spam, you report it.


I've now spent 2 pages refuting ridiculous accusations bordering on being flamy and keeping me from digging up more evidence, which you still demand. This does not further the debate, and is in nobody's interest.


Now, I realize that I am a moderator, but I do not have the power to ban people, if you find that a comfort. Report it to the other moderators, if you think I'm lying, since I already gave countless reasons for why I'm not.


You have been warned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which part of my above post did you not read? - C'jais


There is one thing I really don't get. You ask for evidence and proof...and when presented, you arn't happey and you want a source (which I understand), but when given a source, you still don't believe it....so why should I even bother wasting my time getting a source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

There is one thing I really don't get. You ask for evidence and proof...and when presented, you arn't happey and you want a source (which I understand), but when given a source, you still don't believe it....


Because the source usually has no scientific integrity. In fact, if these creationist "scientists" had published a book with these ridiculous claims, they'd get dragged to the UVVU (The commitee concerning lack of scientific integrity). The only reason they have an audience at all is because of the Bible belt and the interweb.


so why should I even bother wasting my time getting a source?


You should spend your time getting a correct source.


All the creationist sources presented in this thread make our resident scientist jackass in Denmark (The skeptical environmentalist - Lomborg) look like a Nobel prize winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can Science Prove God?


Is there a way to scientifically prove God's existence? Let's take a brief look at the scientific method and see if science has any way to prove or disprove the existence of God. In the scientific method, scientists observe some phenomenon and form a conjecture, a theory, about how it works. This theory must predict the outcome of some experiment or observation. Then the scientist does the experiment or makes the observation many times. If the experiment or observation fails, the theory is proven false and the scientist must develop a new theory. The new theory must take into account the actual results of the previous observations and experiments. Then the scientist tries again. No scientific theory is worth anything if it doesn't contain predictions that might prove it false. What if the prediction is true? Does that prove the theory true? No, it just proves the theory is more usefull than the previous theory. The new theory must make new predictions that can be proven true or false by experiment and observation. Many scientific theories have succeeded time and again, only to be disproved in the end. Scientists have come to the conclusion that theories are not true or false, but more useful and less useful.


Well, what about the theory of gravitation? Isn't that proven constantly everywhere around the world and throughout the universe? We know gravity exists. Every time we drop something, every time we don't float away from our chair, we prove gravity exists. But the theory of gravitation seeks to describe the way gravity works. Sir Isaac Newton was the first to "correctly" describe the rules of gravitation (we still don't know how it actually works). His description of the laws of gravity and motion are one of the greatest feats of the human intellect. After many years of being "proven" correct, a young upstart named Albert Einstein proved Newton's laws false. Only a little false, under special conditions, but enough to revolutionize science. Newton's laws still hold for the vast majority in all practical circumstances.


The nice thing about gravity itself is that you can scientifically prove it exists any time you want, just by dropping something and observing whether or not it falls. What about God then? Is there some way to prove His existence at any time by observation, like dropping something proves gravity exists? Even though God is invisible and not perceivable through our senses, is there something about God, His attributes, that can show us any time we think about it that He exists? Or must we just assume He exists, as many do, or assume He doesn't exist, as many others do. We need to KNOW, and stop assuming, for whatever the answer is, it's of paramount importance in each of our lives.



There is a way


If you came to me and said, "Prove to me that gravity exists." I might laugh. But if I took you seriously, I would pick something up and drop it. There are some, so spoiled by philosophy, who would not accept that as proof, but most rational people, scientists included, would find such a demonstration quite acceptable. Remember, the scientist makes a prediction according to the theory and then observes if it's true. The prediction here is: "If I release this object, it will fall. The result is: it does fall. (Obviously, helium baloons are a special case that prove the prediction in an unexpected way.) Is there such a simple demonstration available; proof by observation, to prove God's existence?


Yes, there is! In fact there are many. Not quite as simple as snapping your fingers and having God appear like some genie, but convincing enough to satisfy most people. The demonstration of the existence of gravity is one. The existence of something to drop. The existence of somewhere for it to drop. The existence of the object dropped. And the existence of the one who dropped it and the mind that observed and interpreted the dropping. Just the observation that things exist, that there is a creation, is a proof of God. You can't have a creation without a creator. God is the great Creator. That is His job, it's what He does. The whole universe and all that's in it is a great testimony to and proof of the existence of God. But some scientists say that existance is inevitable, given the laws of the universe.



Creation is perfect and consistent


The creation is ordered and predictable. Things don't suddenly appear or disappear. Gravity doesn't suddenly turn off at unexpected times. A kilogram of iron doesn't become half a kilogram one day and two kilograms the next. Everything works perfectly and in total harmony. No matter how wild and violent and strange things may seem here on earth and out in the universe, everything follows universal laws. The world turns, we have night and day. Earth orbits the sun, we have the seasons. We don't have to worry about the sun not coming up tomorrow morning or winter lasting five years. Isn't it nice that everything that God created always works? Wouldn't it be nice if everything people create would always work? (Well, maybe not everything!) It strains the mind to try to imagine such a perfect universe arising by chance. (It strains the mind to try to imagine anything at all arising by chance.) Such perfection and consistency could only be the product of a great mind. This is another proof of the existence of a perfect and consistent God.


Astronomers have observed regions of the universe thousands of millions of light years away. They have never found any difference in the behavior of matter and energy anywhere in the universe, nor do they ever expect to. Things work consistently here, where we are, and they work consistently everywhere else. As far as can be determined, they've worked that way from the beginning and will always work that way. But scientists speculate that in the first few seconds of the existance of the universe it was wildly different.



Matter and energy prove God


That young upstart mentioned earlier, Albert Einstein, showed that matter and energy are interchangeable. He described their relationship in what is probably the most famous equation in the world: E=mc2. One of the most basic laws of the universe is that matter and energy cannot be either created or destroyed. Matter can be changed from one kind to another and so can energy. Matter can be changed to energy and energy to matter. But in no case is there ever a loss or gain in the total amount. Yet science has also found that the universe has not always existed. The universe is expanding and ,according to evolution, thousands of millions of years ago it all seems to have started at one point. Where did all the matter and energy come from?


There Was a Beginning


One of the great discoveries of science is that there was no past eternity of matter and energy. According to many cosmologists, all matter and energy suddenly appeared at some time in the remote past. They call that occurrence "The Big Bang". Other theories have been proposed but so far haven't withstood the tests of science. According to the Big Bang theory, the whole universe began as a tiny unimaginably compressed ball of matter and energy. It exploded and is still expanding after tens of thousands of millions of years. If this is true, where did this tiny ball of matter and energy come from?


Some cosmologists theorize that such a thing must happen inevitibly. The paradox of the great law that says matter and energy cannot be created and the observations that prove there has been no past eternity of matter and energy point inexorably to a great Creator God.



Life proves God


What we can see of the universe through our telescopes is simple compared to the life on earth and all its forms and interactions. Leaving aside the environmental upsets caused by human exploitation, living creatures and ecosystems on this earth are beautifully functional and balanced. Yes, things go wrong occasionally, living things and whole communities of living things get sick. But even then, there is a healing capacity designed into every living creature and every ecosystem. Yes, designed in! Have you watched many nature shows on TV? Even though the whole focus is on evolution, you might be surprised to count the number of times the word design is used. God is the master Designer and life giver.


Down through history, people have dreamed of creating life. Occasionally you will read of some scientific discovery that is said to be a major step toward creating life in the laboratory. How many major steps are needed? When scientists still have no idea what life is, how can they tell if it's a major step or just incidental? What is life? Obviously, creatures from the largest Blue Whale and Giant Sequoia to the smallest microbe have things in common that define what we call life. But there is some controversy among scientists concerning viruses. Recently, a new disease producer has been discovered that is just a protein. A part of living things to be sure, but not alive itself. Where is the line between living and nonliving drawn? Only God knows. God is the great life giver. Only He knows what life is and only He can produce life. But what if life is only a natural chemical process following known physical laws? Would that disprove the existance of God?



Science tries to answer


Now these proofs and others of God's existence would satisfy most people, but many scientists have hypothetical explanations that don't require God. Though they have never produced life in the laboratory and have never seen it spontaneously appear, they believe as an article of faith that given the proper circumstances and enough time, life must appear. They say that the reason the universe is so perfectly formed and balanced is that if it were not, we wouldn't be here to observe and speculate on it. Perhaps, they say, infinitely many universes have arisen that weren"t able to produce intelligent life and so no one observed them. They even postulate laws that require the spontaneous creation of the tiny ball of matter and energy that started the Big Bang from nothing; that the universe created itself.


Science has no answer


But these are not really answers, they are just attempts to explain the unexplainable. What they overlook in all this is something without which all their speculations are worthless. It is also the greatest proof of the existence of God; the one which no one can dispute. That is the existence of physical law. Gravity follows law. That law was described by Newton and later modified by Einstein. Puny man may not yet perfectly describe that law, but it undeniably exists. It never changes, though human descriptions of it may change. The whole universe follows the law of gravitation and myriad other laws. From the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxy, laws are followed perfectly and for all time.


Living things follow laws; from the laws of chemistry inside the living cells to the laws of inter-species interactions in a large ecosystem. Not one of these laws ever changes or wavers. No scientist has ever created or destroyed or even slightly modified the actual operation of a physical law. No scientist would even know how to go about changing a law. Not one of these laws ever contends with another; all the laws of the universe are in perfect balance and harmony. Because all of the laws work together so perfectly, some scientists feel strongly that there may be a single universal law from which all other laws are derived. If this is someday found to be true, where did that law come from? Even when cosmologists speculate regarding the creation of the universe from the Big Bang, they develop speculative laws and then extrapolate from those speculative laws. Where did all these laws come from if not from the mind of the great Lawgiver, the mighty Creator of all matter, energy, law, and order? Even if it is ultimately discovered that the universe had to arise from nothing, that life had to arise from nonliving, those would be laws. The uncountable, perfectly balanced, harmonious multitude of laws just cannot spring from nothing! And if they all spring from one great law, that law cannot spring from nothing. There is no other answer, God the great law giver does exist!


Now that the existence of God has been indisputably proven, what does that mean to you and to your future? Don't you think you should find out if the Great Creator God who created the whole universe has any interest in you? Does He have a plan for you? Does He have things He wants you to do and are there things He wants to do for you? The answers to these questions are in the Holy Bible. The Bible has been much misunderstood and characterized by some as the meaningless ramblings of a minor tribe of people who lived in the Middle East thousands of years ago. Yet the Bible is owned by more people in the world than any other book. Why this strange paradox?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For you Big Bang fans


Fred Hoyle did some detailed calculations, and announced that a big bang would produce only light elements—helium, deuterium and lithium (the latter two are actually quite rare). He calculated that if the density of the universe were about one atom per eight cubic metres, the amounts of these three light elements would be quite close to those actually observed. In this way, a new version of the theory was put forward which was nothing like the older theories. This no longer mentioned the cosmic rays of Lemaître, or the heavy elements of Gamow. Instead, the evidence put forward was the microwave background and three light elements. Yet none of this constitutes conclusive proof for the big bang. A major problem was the extreme smoothness of the background microwave radiation. The so-called irregularities in the background are so small that these fluctuations would not have had time to grow into galaxies—not unless there was a lot more matter (and therefore a lot more gravity) around than appears to be the case.


There were other problems, too. How does it come about that bits of matter flying in opposite directions all managed to reach the same temperature, and all at the same time (the "horizon" problem)? The partisans of the theory present the alleged origins of the universe as a model of mathematical perfection, all perfectly regular, a regular "Eden of symmetry whose characteristics conform to pure reason," as Lerner puts it. But the present universe is anything but perfectly symmetrical. It is irregular, contradictory, "lumpy." One of the problems is why did the big bang not produce a smooth universe? Why did not the original simple material and energy just spread out evenly in space as an immense haze of dust and gas? Why is the present universe so "lumpy"? Where did all these galaxies and stars come from? So how did we get from A to B? How did the pure symmetry of the early universe give rise to the present irregular one we see before our eyes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and here's something for you, just for fun



One reason why Evolution is false...using only a Rubik's Cube and some math.


Yes, it's true...a Rubik's Cube could help prove the theory of Evolution to be completely false. I hope that you all know what a Rubik's Cube is, so I'm not going to worry about an explanation. Let's get going:




Imagine 100,000,000,000,






000 (10^50) blind men stretched throughout the universe, all holding a messed up Rubik's Cube. Imagine the odds of all 100 billion-kajillion blind men completing the Rubik's Cube at the exact same time...pretty big odds. As a matter of fact, the average odds against each success of a Rubik's Cube is 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 (4 x 10^19) to 1. Multiply:




(10^50) x (4 x 10^19) = 4,000,000,




000,000,000,000,000,000, -


000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (4^69)




"So, what's your point?"...According to the Nobel Prize-winning scientists Sir Fred Hoyle, that's about the same odds of one functioning protein molecule evolving by chance on the ancient Earth. Actually, he's probably being generous with those odds.


With those odds, we can pretty much rule out the chance of one protein molecule, let alone the many, very many, of them that are required to even contain life, and look at all of the complex life systems that we have today and every day.


Of course, you get those people that say that since there is a "chance" of this happening, it had to have happened becuase we are here today...they assume that we have evolved without actually proving it (and we all know what assuming does).


It's your choice. The odds are 4^69:1...would you bet $100 on it? How about your stereo? How about your beliefs? How about...your eternity? Your choice, choose wisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something for you to read.



Evolution - A False Doctrine


April 1996



The Evolution Theory is a false doctrine devised by scientists lacking modern technology and

knowledge in an attempt to escape the aggressive confines of Religion, thereby forming a new

faith referred to as "natural selection". Throughout time, evolution mechanisms have been

developed to account for many barriers facing evolutionists. From Lamarckism developed by

Jean Baptisete DeLamarck (1829) to Darwinism by Charles Darwin (1859) to The Mutation

Theory by Hugo deVries (1901) right up to the current theory of Neo-Darwinism, modifications to

this doctrine have evolved to include modern scientific principles of Biology, Anthropology,

Physics and Mathematics. The concept of "Evolution" as proposed by Charles Darwin does not

in itself present opposition to creation by a higher order of intelligence. Evolution simply implies

"gradual change through time". Thus, a creator might have employed such means of creation

just as humans gradually design and build newer cars with an increased variety of shapes and

colors. The conflict arise when Naturalists insist that all life gradually evolved from non-living

matter by the process of natural selection which is a direct violation of The Law of Biogenesis1 .

Naturalistic evolution is considered and taught to be a fact rather than a theory by many

scientists and teachers. It is an everyday event to watch a television show such as the

Discovery Channel and constantly be reminded of how evolutionary mechanisms caused the

rise of life on Earth. Any inquiries questioning evolution are immediately suppressed or

answered with evolutionary terms such as "survival of the fittest" which is a tautology and hence

can not be disputed with out proper knowledge or deep understanding of the clauses used.

Although the theory itself offers abundant examples of "evolutionary paradoxes", many scientists

choose to dismiss these confrontations and faithfully follow the evolution doctrine. Careful

biological examinations of various organisms prove that purely accidental evolution is definitely

unattainable and offer proof to illustrate why many built in mechanisms in animals are either fully

functional as a whole, or are rejected.

Mathematical probabilities defy all arguments presented by evolutionists and clearly disqualify

natural selection as being a credible scientific theory. Furthermore, The Evolution Theory finds

itself strangled when trying to dispute its rationale against physics laws which govern this

universe. Darwinists insult science by refusing to follow scientific regulations and forcing this

"faith" as a fact before endorsing it as a theory. It is accepted by many scientists as the only

explanation for the origin of life, consequently omitting all other theories including creation. "We

in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had

with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we

tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the

presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science

classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather

than happened by chance." 2 The Evolution Theory is based on evidence gathered by "expert"

scientists to justify their claim of an evolutionary chain. In many cases, evolutionists use

strategies to shine their theory on to the public by means of media shows such as the famous

Scopes trial as well as secretly generating false "evidence" displaying skeletons of missing links

such as the Piltdown Man and refusal to claim responsibility for conclusions mistakenly made;

such as the case of Lucy. In addition, "evidence" supporting the evolutionary chain is invalid in

view of the tremendous lack of intermediate links between species as well as, all the evidence

pointing towards evolution is prominently based on the assumption that evolution has occurred.

Thus, once an assumption has become the evidence for the premeditated conclusion, it is

somewhat obvious to view that conclusion as the only logical explanation. One of the most well

known conflicts between Creation and Darwinism called the Scopes case, occurred in the

1920's which was especially engineered to make a mockery of Creationism. The Tennessee

legislature had passed a statue prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Opponents of the law

engineered a case test in which a former substitute teacher named Scopes volunteered to be

the defendant. William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic presidential candidate and a

Bible believer led the prosecution. The Scope's defense team was led by the famous criminal

lawyer Clarence Darrow. Darrow called Bryan to the stand as a Bible expert and presented him

with a tooth belonging to the Nebraska Man (prehistoric man within the evolutionary chain).

Darrow humiliated Bryan in a devastating cross-examination in which he showed that the

leading "scientific authorities" in the world confirmed the tooth belonged to a prehistoric man.

The "monkey-trial" was a triumph for Darwinism and had a powerful impact on the general

public. "However, years after the trial, the skeleton of the animal which the tooth came from was

found. As it turns out, the tooth on which the Nebraska Man was created belonged to an extinct

species of pig. The "authorities" who ridiculed Mr.Bryan for his ignorance, created an entire race

of humanity out of the tooth of a pig!"3 Such "authority figures" have been governing and

monitoring the media in an attempt to establish Evolution as a fact and not a theory. "It is

absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that

person is ignorant, stupid or insane!" 4 Nevertheless, not all scientists are limiting themselves

to one possible conclusion. There are those who openly admit flaws within this theory and try to

reasonably establish evidence to support their claims as true scientists. If they lack such

evidence, they permit criticism and act as respected scientists by drawing objective conclusions

based on their initial hypothesis and gathered observations. Such is the case with the founder

of the Theory of Evolution, Charles Darwin. "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms

must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the

earth? The number of extinct species must have been inconceivably great!... not one change of

species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed!...

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole

theory." 5 Throughout the history of the Evolution Theory, many people have tried to help natural

selection "evidence" by engineering false proof that will in turn prove the missing link between

humans and apes. In 1912, Charles Dawson (a fossiologist) discovered some bones, teeth and

primitive implements in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to Dr. Author

Smith Woodward (well known and respected paleontologist) at the British Museum. The

remains were marked as being 500,000 years old. This new discovery generated mass media

coverage all over the world and "Evolution" became the primary theory for the origin of life. The

evolutionary link between man and ape was found! On October 1956, using a new method to

date bones based on fluoride absorption, the Piltdown bones were found to be fraudulent.

Further, critical investigation revealed that the jawbone actually belonged to an ape that had died

only 50 years previously. The skeleton, tested and confirmed by "expert scientific authorities"

proved to be a fake. This did not matter; the promotion of "Evolution" has been successful in

planting the idea that soon, the real missing link will be found, instead of generating an inquiry

as to the validity of this theory. "When it comes to the origin of life on the earth, there are only

two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (Evolution). There is no third way.

Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other

conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We can not accept that on philosophical grounds

(personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose

spontaneously by chance." 6 Present day speculation about human evolution is mainly based

on a group of fossils called autralopithecines and in particular, a specimen called Lucy, a 40%

complete skeleton. During investigations conducted from 1972-1977 in a far area of Ethiopia,

D.C. Johanson discovered a skeleton later to be known as Lucy. This again, generated mass

media coverage as an evolutionary link between humans and apes was found. In a National

Geographic article (December 1976), Joahnson claimed that "the angle of the thigh bone and

the flattened surface at its knee joint end... proved she walked on two legs." "However, evidence

regarding the actual discovery of the knee joint that was used to 'prove' that Lucy walked upright

was found more than 200 feet lower in the strata and more than two miles away. The knee joint

end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson's conclusion is pure speculation."7

Anatomist Charles Oxnard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships,

has concluded that the australopithecines did not walk upright (not in the same manner as

humans). Furthermore, there is evidence that people including Kanapoi hominid and

Castennedolo Man walked upright before the time of Lucy. Obviously, if people walked before

Lucy, than once again, this "evidence" is disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor. Thus, the only

scientific basis for concluding that Lucy was an evolutionary link, was the assumption that

evolution did occur. When lining evidence on the assumption that a theory is a fact, the only

possible conclusion which could be generated is that fact; "the fact of evolution" (closed circle).

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observations and

wholly unsupported by facts." 8 One of the most serious blows to the Evolution Theory is the

absence of transitional forms. As Darwin was honest enough to admit the defect in his theory

regarding these intermediate links, his assumptions were credible. "The explanation lies,

however, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." 9 In 1859, this explanation

drove geologists to vigorously search for fossils of these "links". Although it has been over 100

years since Darwin's time, we now have fewer samples of "transitional forms" than we did back

then. Instead of heaving more samples, we actually have less because some of the old classic

examples of evolution have been recently discarded due to new information and findings, and no

new transitional forms have been found. "The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of

transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real,

they will never be filled." 10 Nevertheless, evolutionists still maintain their determination to put

their faith before the evidence. It is not with facts that evolutionists argue against the

theory of creation, but rather, with tentative assumptions based on faith and inability to explain

the paradoxes in nature. When confronted with questions such as "who came first, the chicken

or the egg?", they reply with philosophical answers containing no shred of evidence. Throughout

the natural environment, organisms have been discovered and examined revealing clear

evidence of defiance to the Evolution Theory. From the ingenious design of the human eye, to

the magnificent relationship between symbiotic organisms, right to the marvelous design of body

structures and color variation in nature, the notion of "it" happening by "mere coincidence" is

completely preposterous and a ridiculous theory for science to acknowledge. In addition to the

visual beauty in nature, DNA serves as an impenetrable shield to the Creation Theory and a fatal

weapon against the Theory of Evolution. "Take the human body alone-the chance that all the

functions of the individual could just happen, is a statistical monstrosity!" 11 Evolutionists are

helpless when trying to explain the step by step evolution of the human eye. As one of the most

intriguing organs of the body, it contains automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic

aperture adjustment. The human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright

sunlight. It sees an object with a diameter of a fine hair, and makes about 100,000 separate

motions in an average day. Then, while we sleep, it carries out its own maintenance work. The

human eye is so sophisticated that scientists are still trying to understand how it functions.

When objectively questioning his own theory, Charles Darwin confirmed that "to suppose that

the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for

admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,

could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest

possible degree... The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by

natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone." Nonetheless, evolutionists still stick

to their "faith" and a paralyzed answer, "it happened somehow, somewhere". It is hopeless to

try and explain how the eye evolved step by step because, it is either a complete structure

(including all other organs such as brain to perceive the information and then analyze it like a

computer, as well as all other organs such as heart, blood vessels, etc.), or it is incomplete, in

which case it will be rejected by the organism. It either functions as an integrated whole or not

at all. Darwin has stated that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which

could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory

would absolutely break down." However, the human eye is just the tip of the iceberg.

Evolutionists' problems are further complicated by the fact that hundreds of different eyes exist in

different organisms. These different eyes are built with absolutely distinct designs. A squid's

eyes are structurally different than a human's eyes or a crab's eyes, etc. To compare the

structures of these eyes is like comparing a radio's design with a computer's design. Both

receive and output signals but have completely different architectural designs. Such a case of

evolution, of many different eyes, each astonishingly designed and crafted, is surely a dilemma

an evolutionist must face. To illustrate, the Trilobite eye; unlike the lens of a human eye, which

is composed of living, organic tissues, trilobite eyes are composed of inorganic calcite. Unlike

human eyes which are composed of a single lens, trilobite eyes have a very special double lens

design with anywhere from 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye (depending on the sub-species).

This special design allows the trilobites to see under water perfectly, without distortions.

Sufficient knowledge of Abbe's Sine Law, Fermat's Principle, and various other principles of

optics are fundamental in the design of these lenses. They appear to have been carefully crafted

by a very knowledgeable physicist.

Astonishing symbiotic relationships between organisms found in nature, mock the Evolution

Theory. There are many instances where organisms of different species are completely

dependent upon each other for survival. For instance, "the Pronuba moth lives in a cocoon in

the sand at the base of the Yucca plant. Pronuba moths can only hatch on certain nights of the

year, which are also the only nights that Yucca flowers bloom. When the Pronuba moth

hatches, it enters an open Yucca flower and gathers pollen12 . It then flies to a different yucca

plant, backs into the flower and lays its eggs with the Yucca's seed cells. It pushes the pollen it

had gathered into a hole in the Yucca flower's pistil, so the pollen will fertilize the Yucca's seed

cells where the moth laid its eggs. The moth then dies. As the moth's eggs incubate, the yucca

seeds ripen. When the eggs hatch, the moth larvae eat about one fifth of the Yucca seeds.

They then cut through the seed pod and spin a thread that they use to slide down to the desert

floor. They proceed into the sand and spin a cocoon and the cycle continues. There are several

kinds of Yucca plants, each pollinated by its own kind of moth that is the right size to enter the

particular flower. The Yucca plant and the Pronuba moth are dependent on each other for

reproduction, thus survival." 13 Another example of a symbiotic relationship is found between

large fish and usually smaller fish and shrimp. Many large fish feed on smaller fish and shrimp.

However, once these large fish find that their mouths have become littered with debris and

parasites, they swim to places were smaller fish and shrimp clean their mouths. When the

large fish opens its mouth and gill chambers, baring vicious-looking teeth, the little fish and

shrimp swim inside the large fish until they finish their job of eating all the debris and then swim

out unharmed and the big fish swims away. Both parties involved in this relationship benefit and

override the instincts developed by "Evolution" for self-preservation to eat the smaller fish and

shrimp, as well as, for the cleaning animals' unnatural suicidal tendency to walk straight into the

mouth of this large fish. This relationship is not limited to fish. The bird Egyptian Plover is

designed to freely walk into the mouth of the Nile crocodile to clean out parasites and leaves

completely unharmed. Such relationships challenge the Evolution concept of each animal's

instinct for self-preservation. However, such a relationship can occur if the organisms had

implanted information within their genetic program for them to act out and follow. A computer

will do whatever it is instructed according to the program it runs by. It will not display feelings or

change course out of will. It will only act as it was programmed to act. As stated by Charles

Darwin, "if it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed

for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have

been produced through natural selection." Therefore, the evidence of the Pronuba moth and the

Yucca flower clearly present a relationship in which not just one particular part of a structure of

an organism is necessary for the survival of another specie, but they are both completely linked

in a reproductive cycle in which both species had to "evolve" at the same time absolutely

annihilating the concept of "gradual evolution" by "chance"; a paradox equivalent to the famous

question of "who came first, the chicken or the egg?" Another paradox is "who came first, male

or female?" If the male or the female evolved first, then why would nature complicate itself by

allowing for that organism to "start evolving" two genders that have to be 100% compatible with

each other, as well as, each gender be attracted to the opposite gender, and many other

considerations to be taken in order to assure reproduction. It would be ridiculous to even

consider the possibility of both genders (in every specie containing two genders) evolving at the

same time with such complexity and compatibility. "The explanatory doctrines of biological

evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism."14 Another fine example of such paradox in

nature is the Bombardier beetle. The Bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an

impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this organism ejects

irritating and odious gases, which are at 2120F, out from two tail pipes right into the face of its

predator. Hermann Schildknecht, a German chemist, studied the Bombardier beetle to find out

how he accomplishes this chemical achievement. He learned that the beetle makes his

explosive weapon by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and

hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, there is a third chemical known as the

"inhibitor". The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store

these chemicals in his body. Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog,

he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes and, at the precisely right

moment, he ads another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). A violent explosion occurs right in the face

of the attacker. When analyzing the "evolutionary process" that allowed the Bombardier beetle

to develop such a chemical weapon, we are forced to speculate that first, there must have been

thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal

evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we assume, they have

arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need

to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the

other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for

you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such design and pre-meditative arrangement would

have to arise from intelligent foresight and planning. Nevertheless, assuming that the beetle

somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the important

inhibitor. The solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a

harmless mixture. To be of any value to the beetle, an anti-inhibitor must be added to the

solution. So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these

poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until

finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. With the anti-inhibitor developed he still can't touch his

predators because he still needs to "evolve" the two combustion tubes and a precise

communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the

explosion. So once again, for thousands of generations, the beetles blew themselves up to

pieces until they finally mastered this long range plan. Such a defense mechanism requires

vast amount of knowledge to design and construct. To argue that it all just evolved

instantaneously is absurd and to suggest that for thousands of generations, "natural selection"

aimed to achieve this specific and remarkable design is not within the Evolution Theory's

capabilities. 15 In addition to the superb design of structural engineering, nature, is filled with

magnificent varieties of colors arranged in geometric shapes and sizes. Many organisms exhibit

such architectural designs clearly showing intelligent pattern. Butterflies, fish, flowers, birds,

and many other types of organisms have color decorations as a part of their genetic makeup.

An animal such as the Zebra, contains an intelligent design of black and white stripes makes it

a very easy target for hunting (see cover page for illustration). Furthermore, these stripes on the

Zebra are composed of billions of cells, each have the proper chemicals to produce that specific

color in the specific location. When demonstrating how an evolutionary mechanism could have

developed the Zebra's patterned looks, the process can be paralleled to programming a

computer to randomly produce colored pixels on the screen and waiting to see if a pattern such

as black line, white line, black line, white line, etc. would occur. Furthermore, it is not enough to

hope for the black and white lines to appear (orderly), how can they possibly be genetically

integrated into the Zebra's coded DNA? Would a computer for no reason, program itself to

display these lines on the screen if you smash it everytime it didn't? Because of the Zebra's

patterned look, it can be seen from vast distances and killed. Evolutionary thinking is so

focused on what is practical and what is required for self-preservation, that when presented with

such a widespread of beauty which in many cases serve no purpose except for decoration, they

must either capitulate or ignore the facts. Such is the case with the fish, Rhodicthys.

Rhodicthys is of a bright red color. Yet, it lives in total darkness, 1.5 miles below the surface of

the ocean. Likewise, the deep-sea Neoscopelus macrolepidotus is vividly colored with azure

blue, bright red, silver spots, and black circles! Even the eggs of some of the deep-sea

creatures are brilliantly colored. Furthermore, naturalists' obsession for defending evolution no

matter what, has produced absurd and absolutely senseless statements regarding animals

such as the peacock.

"Do the creation scientists really suppose their Creator saw fit to create a bird that couldn't

reproduce without six feet of bulky feathers that make it easy for leopards?"16 It seems to me

that a peacock is just the kind of animal an artistic Creator would favor, but an "uncaring

mechanical process" like natural selection would never permit to develop. "I reject evolution

because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy,

histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The

foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long

deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."17

Ultimately, DNA is without a doubt the strongest weapon to hinder the Theory of Evolution. "Now

we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of

functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme

comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of this gene

(its complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls." 18 DNA is the coded

language on which the foundation of life is based on. Unlike electronic devices built by human

beings employing the rules of electricity (on, off) , DNA is an extremely more complex and

mystifying method for transmitting ordered information for it is founded on four acids (4 parts)

which make up a language far more detailed than that of two parts. DNA molecules can only be

replicated with the assistance of specific enzymes, which in turn, can only be produced by the

controlling DNA molecule. Each is absolutely necessary for the other and both must be present

for replication to occur. Thus, we can conclude that the basic grounds on which "evolutionary

mechanisms" operate, are in themselves, a paradox on the molecular level. "The capacity of

DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of modern technology. The information needed to

specify the design all the species of organisms which ever lived (known) could be held in a

teaspoon and there would still be room left to hold all the information in every book ever written."

19 Such extraordinary sophistication can only reflect super-intelligent design. In addition,

computer scientists have demonstrated conclusively that information does not and cannot arise

spontaneously.20 "The Information Theory has shown that mistakes cannot improve a code of

information; they can only reduce a code's ability to transmit meaningful information.

Information results only from the expenditure of energy (to arrange letters and words) and under

the all-important direction of intelligence." 21 DNA is information. The only logical and

reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that DNA was formed by intelligence. The

paradoxes facing evolutionists are unconquerable simply because, what used to be their most

convenient answer "we had millions of years for this to happen", is no longer valid for answering

questions such as, "who came first the chicken or the egg? Male or female? Pronuba moths or

the Yucca plant? DNA molecule or the enzymes responsible for its development? and so forth.

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of

chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the

facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely

complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically

and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

I doubt you're going to read any of what I just posted, because it seems people try to get around stuff that challenges their evolution belief.


However, if you did read it all, good for you.


I'm reading it.


But not the last one, I'm afraid, as I can't read it when it's all scattered about. Could you edit it to make it more readable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'jais, we could all agree that in this universe there is a beginning and a end, correct? If this is true, what was the beginning of the big bang; how was that energy ball created? I have been thinking, and this is the only possible way to live in a dimension without a higher power:


Somewhere, if multiple dimensions do exist, there was a dimension that had no beginning or end. Somehow the energy that would be the big bang was created and brought to this dimension.


I'm not too sure if I believe in multi-dimensions, they were only tools of sci-fi writers. I would find it more convincing to believe that there is a being beyond all imagination that brought about the existence of the universe.


What are your views on the pre-big bang situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Rp, that took a while to read, but I think it had a lot of good stuff in it. After reading it all, I can't see how people could have very strong beliefs about the universe having no creator. And Cjais what the heck are you talking about? I dont see how you can get RNA out of what you said. Its rather obvious that you said in one post that it was impossible to create life, and in the other you said that it could be done at High School level. Either way, Im thinking it's probably highly improbable that you could create a strand of RNA either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I've got a little catching up to do ;-)


It seems this debate never goes away..... that's cool. It's fun to discuss.


The thing about evolution versus creation that come immediately to mind is that evolution is a scientific theory and creation is not.


Scientific theory operates under testable hypothesis and theories must be bounded. In otherwords, they apply only to a particular field of inquiry. If I discover that pushing the small round button on my monitor causes it to turn off or on, depending on it's current state, then I can reasonably apply this rule, or bounded theory, to other monitors.


I can't really say it was "god's will" since that could apply to the reason my car won't run without petrol. "God's will" is an unbounded explaination. It can apply to floods, death's, or my monitor switch.


Bounded theories can be tested (try many, many monitors.... same effect.... theory is strengthened), unbounded ones cannot.


Evolution is not a religion. It is science. That's it.


Creation, on the other hand generally relies heavily on religion. But so far as I've seen here, the only creation idea that is mentioned is the christian one. There are many other cults out there that have their own views of creation. Some similar, many different. It's a bit ethnocentric to just consider one possibility for creation.... if you reject the science, that is.


Although the theory itself offers abundant examples of "evolutionary paradoxes", many scientists

choose to dismiss these confrontations and faithfully follow the evolution doctrine.


Hmmm... one cannot apply the same reasoning that cult followers utilize to scientists. Scientists do not "faithfully follow" "evolution doctrine."


Evolution is a theory, not a religion and cannot be a doctrine, since it is by nature, correctable. Evolution by natural selection has fullfilled the requirements of a scientific theory superbly. I'm sure it will continue to be refined in the future, as what we have now is a theory based on over 2000 years of observation and correction. It's the end product of a long chain of hypothesizing and testing.


Creation, on the other hand, is not scientifically fruitful. The idea of creation (and I'm not just refering to the christian idea) came into being within cultures that had little ability to test their observations. Understanding of the world around them being severely limited, they did the best job they could at explaining the universe and it's existence. Had this idea, over time, been corrected or updated it would have held more validity, however, since creation is an idea that, especially in the christian view, is unchanging, it is therefore invalid.


I'll stop here for now, because, as Rp pointed out, longer posts are harded to read.... But I'll be around. I've finally got school / work sorted into some kind of routine :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, its time i got myself involved... I guess you could say im new to this place. New to this place, mind you, so dont bother treating me like a full-fledged newbie. So now, where to begin...


...i can see we have some ignoramuses here that are jsut gonna waste my time when i start arguing, namely C'Jais. So do me a favor, and keep your adolecent mind out of my dealings, would you/ ill permit you to comment on them, but reading this post makes me sure youll only make an ass out of yourself if you try and 'argue'. And Pnut Master? good form, indeed. So then, ill jsut begin at the basics. Though evolution and the big bang theory are not always synonimous, im sure most evolutionists beleive in the big bang. So then, which one of you psyco-babbling evolutionists wants to tell me, according to the evolution/big bang theories, how the universe started... and from what? Please, enchant me.


With that attitude, prepare to leave this place soon. How old are you? -C'jais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kickwhit

Well, its time i got myself involved... I guess you could say im new to this place. New to this place, mind you, so dont bother treating me like a full-fledged newbie.


Welcome... Enjoy your stay. I bet it's short, but welcome none the less! We'll just refer to you as... say a half-fledged newbie then! j/k :-)


Originally posted by Kickwhit

...i can see we have some ignoramuses here that are jsut gonna waste my time when i start arguing, namely C'Jais. So do me a favor, and keep your adolecent mind out of my dealings, would you/ ill permit you to comment on them,


Well... that's very good of you. I'm sure C'Jais will appreciate it.



Originally posted by Kickwhit

So then, which one of you psyco-babbling evolutionists wants to tell me, according to the evolution/big bang theories, how the universe started... and from what? Please, enchant me.


Well.... actually, I've never really concerned myself with the Big Bang theory... as theories go, it has about as much validity as any other... including the "god factor." But, both of these theories (as well as the others) are not testable, so they rely on existing observation to make hypothesis on.


Big bang actually does have observable evidence that would support it as a theory. I'm not really into astronomy, but it is related to the motion (red shift / blue shift) of the universe as observed by astronomers that indicates that it is expanding outward from a common center.


Religious documents is about the only evidence that remains to support the opposing theory. One is observable and somewhat testable... the other is ... well... the word of the author(s).


Actually, I find the events of the last 4.6 billion years to be far more interesting. Natural selection and genetic mutation have certainly provided us with an wonderful abundance of life forms for our planet. The diversity of species is as broad and interesting as the diversity of environments.


I've never actually understood the need for debate over two ideas: creation as a belief really doesn't hold up to modern understanding of chemistry, physics, geology, biology, etc.


Originally posted by Kickwhit

which one of you psyco-babbling evolutionists


Originally posted by Kickwhit

...i can see we have some ignoramuses


Perhaps. I would assume that the root of that last noun to be "ignorant," which means to be without knowledge. If true, then you may be interested to know that psychobabble is a term that refers to "writing or talk using jargon from psychiatry or psychotherapy without particular accuracy or relevance." We're actually discussing chemistry, biology, genetics, physics, theology, and the like. Not much going on in the way of psychology.


Just didn't want you to go around as an ignoramus, I think more highly of you than that.




Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...