Evidence for Creation & Against Evolution.

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This thread is presenting the "mountains" of evidence which contradict the concept that all creatures descended from some sort of hypothetical primitive protocell ("replicating molecule"). This material is taken from Walter Brown's book, In The Beginning, which can be viewed in its entirety on his website. http://www.creationscience.com/

So far we have presented only 5 of the hundreds of topics in which Dr. Brown has accumulated vast amounts of evidence which falsify the extreme extrapolation from small changes which are assumed by evolutionists to support their preposterous idea.

When we actually look at the evidence in detail we find the opposite of what we have all been taught, in other words evolution is actually falsified by the detailed evidences.

The five areas covered so far are: 7. Fruit Flies, 21. Rapid Burial (of fossils). 23. Fossil Gaps, 24. Missing Trunk (e.g. the Cambrian Explosion) and 15. Codes, Programs & Information.

I will continue posting the detailed evidences which falsify the ToE but is consistent with Creation until the evolutionists slink away defeated by the very evidence which they falsely claim supports their failed paradigm. But don't hold your breath about that, because ideas in science, once frozen into dogma as evolution has, die hard (especially when the only logical alternative is God).

-----------------

22. Parallel Strata
The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time. (The mechanism involved is explained on pages 158–168.)

Figure 11: Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly (many) strate (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had it been slowly, its top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide. (Notice the one-meter scale bar, equal to 3.28 feet, in the center of the picture.)
 
Last edited:

avatar382

New member
Nineveh said:
You seem to want to start with something that's just magically assumed to be there. If abiogenesis didn't/can't happen, then where does that leave evo? Standing on thin air?

Science's answer on the question of abiogenesis (origin of life from non-life) is "we don't quite know yet, all we have are guesses".

Science's answer on the question of evolution (diversification of life that is assumed to exist) is very well defined and supported, to the point that a whole branch of science is based on it. (Biology)

The questions
a.) How life did life arise and
b.) How did that life diversify into the countless many species we observe today

Are mutually exclusive! Perhaps an unwillingness to understand or accept this fact is the reason why there is so much misunderstanding and confusion as to the content and scope of the TOE.
 

Johnny

New member
This thread is presenting the "mountains" of evidence which contradict the concept that all creatures descended from some sort of hypothetical primitive protocell ("replicating molecule"). This material is taken from Walter Brown's book, In The Beginning, which can be viewed in its entirety on his website. http://www.creationscience.com/
You are presenting a lot of evidence, but you seem rather uninterested in defending the validity of any of them. Perhaps a more beneficial approach for both parties would be to present one argument from Walt Brown's book--perhaps some of the most convincing, and then defend it.

I must ask if you actually endorse what you're posting. Do you affirm that the evidence you are posting is a truthful and complete picture? Would you stand by it? Would you agree that Walt has presented the whole story--and all the relevant details and research? Would you affirm that the research he has presented is presented accurately? If so, I would be interested in seeing you defend a few of these. Perhaps we could go "one on one" and see if you really believe what you're posting.
 

Nineveh

Merely Christian
avatar382 said:
The questions
a.) How life did life arise and
b.) How did that life diversify into the countless many species we observe today

How about the question: how did we get species without something to get species from?

Are mutually exclusive! Perhaps an unwillingness to understand or accept this fact is the reason why there is so much misunderstanding and confusion as to the content and scope of the TOE.

I understand ToE divorces itself from abiogenesis. However, this is a huge gap to hang such a massive theory on. On a personal level avatar, what fills that gap for you?
 

noguru

Well-known member
Nineveh said:
You seem to want to start with something that's just magically assumed to be there. If abiogenesis didn't/can't happen, then where does that leave evo? Standing on thin air?

Who said anything about magic? You brought it up. I don't assume that a mystery surrounding natural explanations is evidence for magic or the supernatural. This seems to be your MO. Scientific discoveries do not have to start at the historical beginning. In fact many things in the past will probably never have complete and clear natural explanations. Does this mean we are required by the philosophy of science to appeal to magic or the supernatural? The best we can do sometimes is to say "We don't know.", and continue a course of research. You do know that there are people researching the origins of life? It seems that you are the one that wants to leave origins standing on thin air.
 

noguru

Well-known member
Nineveh said:
How about the question: how did we get species without something to get species from?



I understand ToE divorces itself from abiogenesis. However, this is a huge gap to hang such a massive theory on. On a personal level avatar, what fills that gap for you?

Well perhaps you can redefine how biological research should be done. I guess since you don't approve, then researchers in these fields should follow your course of research. :crackup:

On a perasonal level Nineveh, I do not need anything to fill the gap. I can still live my day to day life knowing that the mystery of life's origin is still unresolved. Can you?
 

Nineveh

Merely Christian
noguru said:
Well perhaps you can redefine how biological research should be done. I guess since you don't approve, then researchers in these fields should follow your course of research. :crackup:

What justified that leap?

On a perasonal level Nineveh, I do not need anything to fill the gap. I can still live my day to day life knowing that the mystery of life's origin is still unresolved. Can you?

I'm happy non answers are good enough for you. As for me, I don't have that problem :)
 

noguru

Well-known member
Nineveh said:
What justified that leap?

Well you seem to be expressing your disapproval of how research is done in natural philosophy. I guess it's OK for you to complain without providing an alternative? :chuckle:

Nineveh said:
I'm happy non answers are good enough for you. As for me, I don't have that problem :)

So you know all there is to know about the mysteries, that for the rest of us, still remain in natural philosophy? Perhaps you should share your insight with the rest of us? :think:
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
noguru said:
On a perasonal level Nineveh, I do not need anything to fill the gap. I can still live my day to day life knowing that the mystery of life's origin is still unresolved. Can you?

Don't you believe God is responsible for the origin of life?
 

noguru

Well-known member
One Eyed Jack said:
Don't you believe God is responsible for the origin of life?

Ultimately yes. The technicalities of how it was done are still a mystery. My personal philosophical world view is probably quite irrelevant in the science classroom. At any rate, I don't believe that appealing to the supernatural when confronted by a mystery is sound logic in natural philosophy.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Since so far nobody has challenged the evidences I have posted I see no reason to defend any of them.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
bob b said:
Since so far nobody has challenged the evidences I have posted I see no reason to defend any of them.
I thought you were posting an entire book.
Can you give us a little synopsys of some of the arguments and then maybe we'll take a bite?
 

avatar382

New member
Nineveh said:
How about the question: how did we get species without something to get species from?

The TOE assumes that life came from somewhere, it just makes no attempt to explain where, exactly. So, to answer your question - life is assumed to exist, and species are different forms of life.

So it's not the case that "we don't have something to get species from", as life is assumed to exist. What science does not have is concrete answers as to where life came from. Subtle, but fundamental difference.

I understand ToE divorces itself from abiogenesis. However, this is a huge gap to hang such a massive theory on. On a personal level avatar, what fills that gap for you?

Honestly, I don't see any satisfactory answers on the origin of life from either science, or religion at this point. I am content with a big fat "I really don't know how life arose".

You mention a "huge gap". Presumably you refer to the presence of naturalistic answers for diversity of life but not origin of life.

I should point out that such "gaps" riddle all of the sciences. For example, science has studied gravitation in great detail without knowing the exact origin of gravitational force - a huge topic in physics.

Ultimately, the argument that it is not valid for the TOE to divorce itself, as you say, from the question of the origin of life because the assumption that life exists is not a valid "starting point" is irrelevant. All of the natural sciences make similiar assumptions to build from. Yet - and this is key - in spite of the assumptions made, natural science still works.

We there are many things we do not understand about the electroweak force, but your computer still works.

The fundamentals of the human body is mostly a mystery, but the science of medicine manages to save countless lives.

I really could go on and on.
 

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
Since so far nobody has challenged the evidences I have posted I see no reason to defend any of them.

Bob, I've got an idea. Call up Walt Brown. Ask him to let you be part of a collaboration with him to produce a peer reviewed paper addressing these issues. I know most of us here are tired of pointing out your misconceptions (ad nasueam), only for you to return a couple weeks later with the same old lame arguments. :D
 

avatar382

New member
bob b said:
Since so far nobody has challenged the evidences I have posted I see no reason to defend any of them.

Part of the reason for that is the argument you've copied and pasted is aimed at challenging an understanding of the Theory of Evolution that is fundamentally incorrect. In short, the arguments are attacking a strawman.

How can two parties debate when the essentials such as definitions cannot be agreed upon? Interestingly, I haven't seen any creationist material geared at attacking the definition of evolution as made by scientists. I believe this absence ultimately stems from a lack of understanding of science in general.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
noguru said:
Ultimately yes. The technicalities of how it was done are still a mystery.

Do you think we'll ever figure it out?

My personal philosophical world view is probably quite irrelevant in the science classroom.

Why is that? Doesn't your worldview come into play when you interpret the facts?

At any rate, I don't believe that appealing to the supernatural when confronted by a mystery is sound logic in natural philosophy.

Are you equating natural philosophy with science?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The purpose I had in mind in starting this thread was to present the mountains of evidence which exist to support Creation and at the same time falsify evolution.

There are of course multiple ways to deflect such a purpose as we have seen attempted here. The only method not tried so far is to try to shift the topic to the accuracy or interpretation of scripture.

;)
 

Nineveh

Merely Christian
noguru said:
Well you seem to be expressing your disapproval of how research is done in natural philosophy. I guess it's OK for you to complain without providing an alternative? :chuckle:

I think you took a leap.

So you know all there is to know about the mysteries, that for the rest of us, still remain in natural philosophy? Perhaps you should share your insight with the rest of us? :think:

I think science is a wonderful tool to use in the endeavor of figuring out the world and universe around us. But, if you think science has gone very far on the abiogenesis front, you should look again.
 

Nineveh

Merely Christian
avatar382 said:
...So, to answer your question - life is assumed to exist, and species are different forms of life. ...


Honestly, I don't see any satisfactory answers on the origin of life from either science, or religion at this point. I am content with a big fat "I really don't know how life arose".

Ok. If that's good enough for you, that's good enough for you. :)
 

noguru

Well-known member
One Eyed Jack said:
Do you think we'll ever figure it out?

Perhaps. I hope that we do. But if it does not happen in my lifetime, I am not going to loose sleep worrying about it.

One Eyed Jack said:
Why is that? Doesn't your worldview come into play when you interpret the facts?

Yes, of course. But in the interest of objectivity I try to see things from other perspectives. I have my subjective world view, which is basically just my opinion. However, I try to be honest with myself by entertaining other opinions, and recognizing that objectivity is goal that we must strive for in the material sciences.


One Eyed Jack said:
Are you equating natural philosophy with science?

The original field of study from which the material sciences emerged was called natural philosophy. Isaac Newton knew this.

Rules of natural philosophy.

Here are some other interesting articles you might consider.

Natural Philosopy Alliance

Origins of modernity

Wikipedia's entry
 
Top