Evidence Evolutionist are Dead Wrong - Creation Reasonable

[theStudent]

Does science support the various teachings on the origin of life on earth?

Darwinism
Darwin's Theory of Evolution -
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
Mutations — radical changes to living organisms at the genetic level — are said to be the “source of raw material for evolution.� Without significant changes occurring at this level, there is no change to the species at all, no evolution at all.
https://thecuriosityparadox.org/tag/mutations/

After a hundred years of experimentation, thousands of lab-induced mutations in multiplied millions of flies, and intelligent selection acting on those mutations, the world’s most brilliant minds have not been able to produce any different kinds of creatures from Drosophila.
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.a ... ticle=2501

P. Davis and D. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Dallas, Texas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1993)

Mutation does not introduce new levels of complexity, and it cannot be shown that it is a step in the right direction. Most observed mutations are harmful, and there is no experimental evidence to show that a new animal organism or even a novel structural feature has ever been produced from the raw material produced by mutation.

FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
Genetic Evolution or Evolution by Natural Selection

Writer Tom Bethell commented: “Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another . . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea.� Bethell added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse.�
http://harpers.org/archive/1976/02/darwins-mistake/

Jonathan Wells
The Problem Of Evidence - 2009
Quote:
Darwin's followers now claim that they have "overwhelming evidence" for their theory, but despite 150 years of research no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection--much less the origin of new organs and body plans.

Not even modern genetics has solved the problem. No matter what we do to the genes of a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly or a dead fruit fly. Darwin's claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution has never been empirically corroborated. Indeed, there is growing evidence that the claim is false.

Quote:
Science follows the evidence wherever it leads, but Darwinism does not. So the present controversy over evolution is not a war between science and religion. It is primarily a war between Darwinism and evidence - and the evidence will win.
http://www.discovery.org/a/9061

John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations, " Science Digest, February 1982, p. 92.
Quote:
Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.

Marcel P. Schutzenberger, [formerly with University of Paris], "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution", page 75, at the symposium, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation"

There is no chance (< 10^-1000) to see this mechanism [mutation-selection] appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain...Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.

Sir Fred Hoyle [English Astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University], "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol. 294: 105 (November 12, 1981)

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'.

FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
Fossils records -

QUOTE:
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ON FOSSIL RECORD
Written by Administrator
Published: 16 April 2013
Last Updated on 27 February 2015

‘Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor.’
National Geographic, November p25

Editorial Comment:
[/b]When 99.9% of the fossil evidence for the theory of evolution is missing, you don’t even have a good hypothesis.[/b] (Ref. fossils, evidence, theory)

http://www.creationresearch.net/index.p ... 6&catid=13

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.�

Darwinism when tested by The scientific test

1. Perform the test
2. Observe what happens
3. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true
4. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments
5. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled

FAILED
to prove any tests to be a conclusive fact.

Sir Fred Hoyle, [Astronomer, Cosmologist, and Mathematician, Cambridge University]

The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.

Pierre-Paul Grasse [French zoologist], Evolution of Living Organisms, page 104 (New York: Academic Press, 1977)

What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.

Darwin confessed, "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 degree."
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Astronomer Robert Jastrow

...chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.

Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956)
Introduction to the centennial edition
W. R. Thompson (former director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada)

...evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion.

The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.
C. Booker (London Times writer)

A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place.

The scientific magazine Discover - October 1980, p. 88

Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists

John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations, " Science Digest, February 1982, p. 92.

Some scientists are proposing even more rapid evolutionary changes and are now dealing quite seriously with ideas once popularized only in fiction.

Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution

nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro-mutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted.

"Organic soup" or "Primordial soup" hypothesis
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
Abiogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space

... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ...

Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), page 39 (Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984)

In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimate. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.

Abiogenesis when tested by The scientific test

1. Perform the test
2. Observe what happens
3. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true
4. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments
5. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled

FAILED
to prove any tests to be a conclusive fact.


Cosmic Evolution
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
the big bang

Conrad H. Waddington [Professor of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh], "The Listener" (London, November 13, 1952), in A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine, page 127 (1989 reprint, London: Arkana, 1967)

To suppose that the evolution of the wonderfully adapted biological mechanisms has depended only on a selection out of a haphazard set of variations, each produced by blind chance, is like suggesting that if we went on throwing bricks together into heaps, we should eventually be able to choose ourselves the most desirable house.

F. Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 20: 1-35, 15 (1982)

A spaceship approaches the Earth, but not close enough for its imaginary inhabitants to distinguish individual terrestrial animals. They see growing crops, roads, bridges, and a debate ensues. Are these chance formations or are they the products of an intelligence? It is not at all difficult to formulate examples of events with exceedingly low probabilities. A roulette wheel operates in a casino. A bystander notes the sequence of numbers thrown by the wheel over the course of a whole year. What is the chance that this particular sequence should have turned up? Well, not as small as 1 in 10^40000, but extremely small nonetheless. So there is nothing especially remarkable in a tiny probability. Yet it surely would be exceedingly remarkable if the sequence thrown by the roulette wheel in the course of a year should have an explicit mathematical significance, as for instance if the numbers turned out to form the digits of pi to an enormous number of decimal places. This is just the situation with a living cell which is not any old random jumble of chemicals.

Biologist Edwin Conkline

The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.

Cosmic Evolution when tested by The scientific test

1. Perform the test
2. Observe what happens
3. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true
4. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments
5. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled

FAILED
to prove any tests to be a conclusive fact.


Proving the theory of Evolution (that life on earth originated by chance) to be a fact, to date, is impossible.
George Howe, expert in biological sciences

The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first - the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? ... there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words.

Biochemist George Waldf

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.

These theories also prove to be both illogical and unreasonable. They defy logic and reason.

[theStudent]

Where does the sceintific evidence point?
"...we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

Sir Fred Hoyle [English Astronomer, Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University] and Chandra Wickramasinge [Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics, University College, Cardiff], ''Convergence to God" in Evolution from Space, pages 141, 144 (London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1981)

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect the higher intelligences to our left, even to the limit of God... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident.

Dr. Richard Dawkins [Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK], "The necessity of Darwinism", New Scientist, Vol. 94: 130 (April 15, 1982)

The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.

The Problem Of Evidence - 2009 (Jonathan Wells)

...the "warfare" metaphor is historically inaccurate. With rare exceptions, such as the Galileo affair, science and religion got along just fine before Darwin.

Before 1859 science meant (and still means, for most people) testing hypotheses by comparing them with the evidence. For Darwin and his followers, however, "science" is the search for natural explanations. Such explanations should be plausible - that is, they cannot blatantly contradict the facts - but instead of being based on evidence they are based on the assumption that everything can be explained materialistically

Amazing Photosynthesis
An additional hurdle for evolutionary theory now arises. Somewhere along the line the primitive cell had to devise something that revolutionized life on earth—photosynthesis. This process, by which plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, is not yet completely understood by scientists. It is, as biologist F. W. Went states, “a process that no one has yet been able to reproduce in a test tube.�22 Yet, by chance, a tiny simple cell is thought to have originated it.
This process of photosynthesis turned an atmosphere that contained no free oxygen into one in which one molecule out of every five is oxygen. As a result, animals could breathe oxygen and live, and an ozone layer could form to protect all life from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation. Could this remarkable array of circumstances be accounted for simply by random chance?


All scientific evidence point to the fact that life must have originated from an intelligent being.
Scientific theories does not allow for that evidence to be determined as factual, because the originator of life cannot be reconstructed in a lab, nor can scientist see the originator of life.
In my opinion, man wants to put everything in a lab, including what they don't know about, and probably never will.


Is it unreasonable to conclude that life did not originate by chance, but did so by intelligent design?

Evolution From Space by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe

“Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.�

Biologist Francis Crickg

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.

Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasingheh

If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation [the mathematical odds against it] wipes the idea entirely out of court.

Erica Check Hayden, “Life is complicated,� Nature, Vol. 464: 664 (April 1, 2010)

The more biologists look, the more complexity there seems to be. … [A]s sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude. Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set — a space that is determined by a simple equation, but that reveals ever more intricate.

Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391.

The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science...we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.

Koonin, Eugene V. (2007) “The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition From Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life,� Biology Direct, V.2, p.8.

Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system.

Franklin M. Harold, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life's Building Blocks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), p. 164.

Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it. ...the study of life's origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation; and this suggests that we may still be missing some essential insight.

H. J. Lipson [F.R.S., Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK], "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31: 138 (1980)

If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? ... I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.

Gareth Nelson [Chairman and Curator of the Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, New York], "Preface," in W. R. Bird , The Origin of Species Revisited, page 22 (Vol. 1, Nashville, TN: Regency, 1991)

...evidence, or proof, of origins-of the universe, of life, of all of the major groups of life, of all of the minor groups of life, indeed of all of the species-is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be.

Pierre-Paul Grasse [Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie", former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University, and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation, page 107 (New York, NY: Academic Press, 1977)

To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.

So why do many still insist on dogmatically promoting evilution against all the evidence?

Chandra Wickramasinghe - highly acclaimed British scientist

Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument.

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation-and not accidental random shuffling.

A. Scott , The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien, pages 111-112 (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1986)

But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern 'standard' scientific version of the origin of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigour in this case? Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability of Nature the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want to believe because their arch opponents - religious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not believe in life's spontaneous origin. It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise.

J. Maddox, What Remains To Be Discovered: Mapping the Secrets of the Universe, the Origins of Life, and the Future of the Human Race, page 131 (1999 reprint, New York, NY: Touchstone, 1998)

Paul Davies gets into all of the corners of research into the origin of life.... Cynically, one might conclude that much of his vague thinking in fact represents the sad state of affairs in this field of research. We are nowhere near understanding the origin of life. But let us try to avoid invoking miracles."
"The origin of life on the surface of the Earth is a unique historical event whose character cannot be established by experiments in contemporary laboratories ... Many scientists have taken this position on the origin of life. Jacques Monod, the distinguished French molecular biologist, said as much in 1970 in his elegant book Chance and Necessity. There is no way, he argued, that an event as improbable as the emergence of life on Earth could be analyzed by science, which is able to deal only with events that form a class.... A decade later, Francis H.C. Crick, co-originator of the structure of DNA, put the argument more specifically: the chances that the long polymer molecules that vitally sustain all living things, both proteins and DNA, could have been assembled by random processes from the chemical units of which they are made are so small as to be negligible, prompting the question whether the surface of the Earth was fertilized from elsewhere, perhaps from interstellar space. `Panspermia' is the name for that.

C. DeDuve, Blueprint for a Cell: The Nature and Origin of Life, page 212 (Burlington, North Carolina: Neil Patterson Publishers, Carolina Biological Supply Company, 1991)

The great diversity of these opinions reflects their largely subjective nature. Individual viewpoints often reveal ideological, philosophical, or religious biases more than they express objective appraisals, for the simple reason that not enough elements are available for objective analysis.

Loren C. Eiseley [late Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], The Immense Journey, page 199 (1957 reprint, New York, NY: Vintage, 1946)

With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.

Mathematician J. W. N. Sullivand

The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.

[theStudent]

Summary

Science, reason, and logic, has thrown the Evolution theories on the origin of life out the door, but it keeps climbing through the window, by die hard evolution religionists.

Science, reason, and logic, lives comfortably with creation, or intelligent life being the cause of life on earth..
While some try vehemently to remove it, it stays lodged - at least in the minds of true science (and scientist), reason (and the reasonable), logic (and those who are logical).

[Goat]

Does science support the various teachings on the origin of life on earth?

Darwinism
Darwin's Theory of Evolution -
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
Mutations — radical changes to living organisms at the genetic level — are said to be the “source of raw material for evolution.� Without significant changes occurring at this level, there is no change to the species at all, no evolution at all.
https://thecuriosityparadox.org/tag/mutations/

That is the claim. however, no evidence has been provided,except for out of context quotes (known as quote mining). Would you care to actually discuss the evidence, rather than a cut/paste from a biased web site that does not accurately present the data?

Can you show that there are no 'signifigent changes at the genetic level', and define in a quantitative manner what 'signifigent changes' actually means>?

As such, these quotes are basically rants that have no actual argument to it.

Before continuing on to the rest of the sources, let's tackle the first source in a complete manner first. Otherwise, it gets nothing but a 'Gish Gallop', where more and more stuff is thrown against the wall to see what sticks. Let's see you actually defend this claim first.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[H.sapiens]

TheStudent has posted nothing more than a Gish Gallop into a quote mine. Just about every quote he cites (most from creationist and/or apologist sources) have been discussed and debunked here in the past. I see nothing new.

[theStudent]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

Thanks
I was wondering why it was moved, but after going over the guide, I understand.
I think I will review the rules and guides again.
Thanks again.

[theStudent]

Does science support the various teachings on the origin of life on earth?

Darwinism
Darwin's Theory of Evolution -
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
Mutations — radical changes to living organisms at the genetic level — are said to be the “source of raw material for evolution.� Without significant changes occurring at this level, there is no change to the species at all, no evolution at all.
https://thecuriosityparadox.org/tag/mutations/

That is the claim. however, no evidence has been provided,except for out of context quotes (known as quote mining). Would you care to actually discuss the evidence, rather than a cut/paste from a biased web site that does not accurately present the data?

Can you show that there are no 'signifigent changes at the genetic level', and define in a quantitative manner what 'signifigent changes' actually means>?

As such, these quotes are basically rants that have no actual argument to it.

Before continuing on to the rest of the sources, let's tackle the first source in a complete manner first. Otherwise, it gets nothing but a 'Gish Gallop', where more and more stuff is thrown against the wall to see what sticks. Let's see you actually defend this claim first.

I agree with all the above, but all science do not follow that rule.
For example,
If I have a guide book, which I require, all my staff to follow.
I don't think that if everyone follow those rules, that anyone would have any basis to say that the rules were not being followed by A, B, C, or D.
Which i find to be the case with science, in certain experiments - not all.

[theStudent]

Conclusions

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years,

no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.

the evidence keeps insisting—intelligence
the entire universe, from atoms to galaxies, is governed by definite physical laws, which would suggest a lawmaker.
it is absurd to suggest a mere “explosion� could not create our awesome universe with its amazing order, design and law.

Charles Darwin

...view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one...

John Glenn (former astronaut)

Could this have just happened? . . . I can’t believe that ... Some Power put all this into orbit and keeps it there.

Does scientific evidence support the Bible's account in Genesis?

Genesis 1:1, 21 is compatible with scientific fact.
It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.�
The fossil record indicate that each “kind� appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,�.

It also reveals an intelligent designer to be responsible for all life on earth.

Is it therefore reasonable to accept the Bible's account?

Antony Flew (professor of philosophy)

We must follow the argument wherever it leads.

It is reasonable, isn't it, that someone can learn something about an artist from his artwork?
Can't we also learn something about the designer from his design?
The scriptures are therefore scientifically, logicaly, and reasonably sound, when it says:
Romans 1:20
Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all!
Hebrews 3:4
Every house, of course, is built by someone---and God is the one who has built all things.
Are those statements not logical - reasonable?

Despite all failed tests to prove evolution to be responsible for life on earth, why do many refuse to accept an intelligent designer?

British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger

...simple dogmatism—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen...

Mathematician J. W. N. Sullivand

The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.

An article in The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor, notes that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments:

Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.

Do these statements sound far fetched?
To me, not at all.
They sound very much truthful.

Would it be wrong to conclude that evolutionists, as said by many in the field of science, and phylosophy, do have a religion, and therefore a god?

A Satanist will tell you they do not worship Satan, or any other god.
Yet they will tell you they are their own god.
Is that not contradictory?

Whatever we choose to worship is our own choice.

Christians however, are not afraid to boldly declare that they worship a true and living God.
Why is it that those who ridicule them, are afraid to admit, that they too have a religious system, a god, and blind faith, which is unlike the Christian faith, which is not blind, but based on evidence?
Hebrews 11:1
Faith, therefore, is the substance of things waited for, the evidence of things not seen.

Could it be, they feel that they can somehow be neutral...?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 8 by theStudent]

I agree with all the above, but all science do not follow that rule.
For example,

If I have a guide book, which I require, all my staff to follow.
I don't think that if everyone follow those rules, that anyone would have any basis to say that the rules were not being followed by A, B, C, or D.
Which i find to be the case with science, in certain experiments - not all.

Are you saying that for 150+ years ALL the scientists testing the theory of evolution have been using poor methodology?

And all the others have fallen for that or just let them do it?

Sounds a bit of a stretch to me.
I wonder if ALL science is done so poorly, or JUST biology and anything related with evolution? Scientists in general are POOR scientists?

We are talking about thousands of individual scientists since the 1850s....all of them not good at it? Lucky for us that the Creationists come along to show us just how SILLY the TOE is?

What's going ON here... ?