Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

[center][/center]
Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two at any stage would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.a

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical,b and electricalc compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.d

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally� evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents� must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.e

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction.f But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. For example, Why do human females live past menopause? If there is no potential for reproduction, then according to evolution, there is no evolutionary reason to exist.

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.g

a . In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body� from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,� mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b . N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,� Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c . Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,� Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

u “When egg meets sperm in mammals, zinc sparks fly. ... [They] are needed to stimulate the transition from egg to embryo.� Ashley Yeager, “Images Reveal Secrets of Zinc Sparks,� Science News, Vol. 187, 10 January 2015, p. 14.

d . For example, how could meiosis evolve?

e . “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.� Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop,� Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f . “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.� George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

u “So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams, 1975; John Maynard Smith, 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.� Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

u “The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.� Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,� New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

u “Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.� Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?� Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

u “Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.� Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,� Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

u “From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?� Nilsson, p. 1225.

u “One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.� [According to evolution, it should not.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?� Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g . “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.� Pitman, p. 135.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp5214829

[Bust Nak]

Where did those self-replicating molecules come from?

Don't know. There are a number of hypothesis, including on the surface of clay, or under water thermo vents.

Where is evidence supporting that assertion?

That's merely from our understanding of evolution. Before we get into evidence, you have to understand what evolution SAYS first. You are not in a position to critique evolution if you don't know what it says.

But isn't that what we observe?

Of course not. Plants don't have emotions for a start, they reproduce sexually just fine.

True, which confirms the fact.

Is said fact all that surprising?

Once for each species?

Just once in the history of life.

Where is evidence supporting that assertion?

Again, that's just basic evolution understanding, it says traits that increase the fitness of a species are more likely to persist. You have to understand what evolution says before you start to critique it.

In what way?

Is it not obvious? Human females live past menopause helps looking after children,
helps gather food, spot dangers, teach them. I mean why do you even have to ask? Maybe look to your own grand mothers as examples?

In what way?

It's trivial. If you stick around to help your kids survive, you increase their chance to reproduce. Their offspring, your grand children, have much of your own genes.

True, but the statement is "...natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself..." Do you know of any natural process that produces life?

Kinda, we have a placeholder - we call it abiogenesis.

[OnceConvinced]

Pahu, if you are going to ask where do these things come from, and where do those come from and where do THOSE come from, etc etc right back to where it all started, then you are getting into the field of abiogenesis, which is separate to evolution.

That is a mistake many creationists make. How things started and evolution are two separate things.

[Kenisaw]

Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

Life presuppose reproduction. The precursor to life was self-replicating molecules.

Where did those self-replicating molecules come from?

That's just chemistry. Some molecules just automatically create copies of themselves. It' a property of that molecule. They aren't alive in any way, they just do it.

The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place.

Incorrect. Species as a whole evolve, not individuals. Male and female did not evolve independently.

Where is evidence supporting that assertion?[/quote]

Every flu virus, cold, pesticide resistant bug, etc known to man. There are hundreds of thousands of them. The populations evolve, and the ones with the right kind of mutation survive the change to their environment (like pesticide sprays) which leads to the pesticide-resistant ones being able to breed successfully more often, spreading that trait out into the general population.

It's all very well documented, look it up, don't take my word for it.

The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.

Not required to sexual reproduction.

But isn't that what we observe?[/quote]

All that is required is comparable DNA. Emotional systems don't play into it...

This remarkable string of “accidents� must have been repeated for millions of species.

Incorrect, just need to happen once.

Once for each species?

Or once for a species if that species became the ancestor to all sexually reproductive species on Earth.

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction. But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

The same way any other biological trait arise and survive, from random variation and selection.

Where is evidence supporting that assertion?

Evolution theory does not predict asexual reproduction over sexual reproduction, because lack of genetic diversity would make a species more susceptible to a virulent pathogen that could wipe out all members of the species.

As to your question about evidence, it's the same as I mentioned above for viruses and pathogens and pesticide resistant bugs and so forth. Google it and read a lot and you will verify it for yourself.

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. For example, Why do human females live past menopause?

Because it offers an evolution advantage to the species, obviously.

In what way?

Passing down knowledge for one.

If there is no potential for reproduction, then according to evolution, there is no evolutionary reason to exist.

Incorrect. While reproduction is the main mechanism, by help your offspring (or indeed any relatives) survive, you are increasing your contribution to the gene pool.

In what way?

Passing down knowledge for one. Protecting each other. I'm sure you can think of some more if you exercise your brain on the topic.

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.

Incorrect. Life by definition could reproduce itself.

True, but the statement is "...natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself..." Do you know of any natural process that produces life?

The appearance of the first life form has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Why is it cultists constantly make this mistake?

To answer your question - chemistry. There is nothing about living things that violates any of the laws of chemistry. Or physics or thermodynamics for that matter. Life doesn't violate the laws of the universe.

[Pahu]

[center]Supernova Remnants[/center]


In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b).  So, the Milky Way looks young.


Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, the remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

a. “An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae.�  G. A. Tammann, “On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies,� Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

A more recent technique that surveyed thousands of galaxies, including smaller galaxies, concluded that
... the time between [supernova] explosions is 100 years or more.� Michael S. Turner, “Yes, Things Really Are Going Faster,� Science, Vol. 299, 31 January 2003, p. 663.

b. Keith Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,� Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp. 175–184.

“Where have all the remnants gone?� Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question� behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning� by Walt Brown]

[benchwarmer]

[center]Supernova Remnants[/center]


In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b).  So, the Milky Way looks young.

...

[From “In the Beginning� by Walt Brown]

Your information is not correct or at the very least, very out of date. Maybe try searching more that just creationist web sites. The following is also somewhat out of date, but only 3 years old:

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... ars-108343

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has found the farthest supernova so far. Supernova UDS10Wil, nicknamed SN Wilson after American President Woodrow Wilson, exploded more than 10 billion years ago.

* I added the bold to the quote

Link to the NASA article:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/ap ... alaxy.html

[Pahu]

[center]Supernova Remnants[/center]


In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b).  So, the Milky Way looks young.

...

[From “In the Beginning� by Walt Brown]

Your information is not correct or at the very least, very out of date. Maybe try searching more that just creationist web sites. The following is also somewhat out of date, but only 3 years old:

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... ars-108343

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has found the farthest supernova so far. Supernova UDS10Wil, nicknamed SN Wilson after American President Woodrow Wilson, exploded more than 10 billion years ago.

* I added the bold to the quote

Link to the NASA article:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/ap ... alaxy.html

There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:

The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.

This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.

Conclusion

There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.

http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Pahu]

Well I see Pahu ignored the difficult replies I made to his post, and jumped right into some other cultist babble that his creationist masters push at their websites.

ICR? Have you bothered to check any website that doesn't have the word "creationist" in it? You are the same tired reply of the untold multitudes of believers who've come before you that think they can post what ICR tells them and somehow they've made an argument. You don't even understand how inaccurate those claims are at ICR, but you are happy to regurgitate them here...

Why not go back and read about seven years worth of threads at this site and see why everything you say is inane pseudo science so that we don't have to correct yet another scientifically illiterate individual...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 16 by Pahu]

The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.

I have a book that says if you let a cat with a hat into your house, he will release two "Things" who will make a gigantic mess. It's in a book, so it must be true. Even if there isn't any empirical evidence to prove it really happened....

[benchwarmer]

There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:

The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.

That's an awfully contorted explanation to make what we have actually learned about our universe through observation and experimentation fit with a set of documents written thousands of years ago by people who had no clue what stars even were.

First of all, we only need one star to accomplish dividing day and night, as a chronological indicator, and for illuminating the Earth. For navigation, something in the order of at most 100s, not 100 billion or so would be much simpler. As for declaring the glory of God, again, why 100 billion? Would we not be impressed with a smaller, simpler, more usable set?

This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.

What does the distance to stars have to do with 'fully functional'? As I already said, it would have been a lot simpler to only create a few stars aligned evenly to make navigation possible and simple. Creating in the order of 100 billion of them (observed to date) certainly is not 'functional'.

I applaud you and whatever creationist site you pulled this from for your mental gymnastics, but most of us prefer to use actual observable, verifiable data. If the data matches some old documents, great! However, the more we learn, the more we see that the Bible is not a science textbook.

There may be a God, but the Biblical account of creation is not correct. If you want to close your eyes and plug your ears to the wisdom and knowledge gained by humanity's collective efforts to understand the universe (or if you want, God's creation) then so be it. The rest of us will continue to learn and be amazed at how things actually work and discover more and more about what's around us.

Conclusion

There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.

http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/

There's no point trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. If what we learn through observation doesn't mesh with what someone wrote down thousands of years ago, maybe we should look somewhere else for knowledge.

[Pahu]

[Replying to post 16 by Pahu]

The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.

I have a book that says if you let a cat with a hat into your house, he will release two "Things" who will make a gigantic mess. It's in a book, so it must be true. Even if there isn't any empirical evidence to prove it really happened....

[center]Bible Accuracy[/center]


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.