hmm...im a bit confused really. i guess i'll number my questions.
1. Is the point of arguing evolution vs. creation to show that evolution is a. religious b. false. c. does not fit with the genesis account at all?
2. Is there no such thing as 100% irrefutable proof? it seems to me so far that no matter what evidence is shown for creation or evolution, the opposing side has an argument against it.
3. the reason I put this in young vs. old. If this is all about defending or disproving the other, wouldn't ALL the importance be in the age of the earth/universe? If the universe can be proven to be young, then all other arguments for evolution would be irrevelant.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp I'v been looking up different evidences for a young earth. This is one of the things i'v found. I am sure all of you here have seen anything that i find. I went through most of the topics on here and looked for evidences that you all were showing and then i forget to keep track of them. I also grew up on kent H*vinds videos when i was younger, though it seems thats a whole entire mess of a different topic. I guess im just asking for a point in the right direction for more evidence for a young earth. is there any other sites that show things like this or any books i can read specifically on a young earth or evidence against the big bang theory?
Full Version: Got Some Questions
QUOTE(frankinheimer @ Oct 6 2006, 02:47 PM)
1. Is the point of arguing evolution vs. creation to show that evolution is a. religious b. false. c. does not fit with the genesis account at all?
Yes, yes, and yes....
QUOTE
2. Is there no such thing as 100% irrefutable proof? it seems to me so far that no matter what evidence is shown for creation or evolution, the opposing side has an argument against it.
I have yet to see a valid argument against the concept fo Information.
QUOTE
3. the reason I put this in young vs. old. If this is all about defending or disproving the other, wouldn't ALL the importance be in the age of the earth/universe? If the universe can be proven to be young, then all other arguments for evolution would be irrevelant.
That's a killer for evolution, but really you don't have to show that the earth is young.
The time argument is an illusion that most people don't think enough about. Implicit in the argument that time is the savior of evolution is the requirement for changes to be continous. We can look around us, and see that evolution is not taking place in a continous fashion, so the time argument is essentially not valid.
Terry
QUOTE(frankinheimer @ Oct 6 2006, 08:47 PM)
hmm...im a bit confused really. i guess i'll number my questions.
1. Is the point of arguing evolution vs. creation to show that evolution is a. religious b. false. c. does not fit with the genesis account at all?
2. Is there no such thing as 100% irrefutable proof? it seems to me so far that no matter what evidence is shown for creation or evolution, the opposing side has an argument against it.
3. the reason I put this in young vs. old. If this is all about defending or disproving the other, wouldn't ALL the importance be in the age of the earth/universe? If the universe can be proven to be young, then all other arguments for evolution would be irrevelant.
1. Is the point of arguing evolution vs. creation to show that evolution is a. religious b. false. c. does not fit with the genesis account at all?
2. Is there no such thing as 100% irrefutable proof? it seems to me so far that no matter what evidence is shown for creation or evolution, the opposing side has an argument against it.
3. the reason I put this in young vs. old. If this is all about defending or disproving the other, wouldn't ALL the importance be in the age of the earth/universe? If the universe can be proven to be young, then all other arguments for evolution would be irrevelant.
1. Evolution is not religious. There are no altars, no priests, no sacrifices, and no one will burn you at the stake.
As to if it is false, I'm sure that if someone else comes up with a better theory as to how organisms change over time the scientific community would consider it.
Genesis is about origins, and you are right, it has very little in common with either the big bang theory or any of the theories about planetary formation.
2. No, nothing is every proven 100%. But as we uncover more about the universe that we live in, we have to take some things as established facts even if they dont hold for every single case. General and Special relativity for example are very good descriptions of space-time, but they don't hold up at the scale of quantum effects but it doesn't make either Quantum theory or Relativity false. We also have to accept that the speed of light is a constant in both theories.
3. There has never been any convincing proof for a young universe. Every cosmology I've seen that tries to describe what we see in the night sky in terms of a young universe has been pretty exotic and fraught with problems.
QUOTE(CrisW @ Oct 7 2006, 07:26 AM)
1. Evolution is not religious. There are no altars, no priests, no sacrifices, and no one will burn you at the stake.
Evolution is the system of origins of a godless functional religion called secular humanism. It has priests who where white lab coats, it has a prophet named Darwin, and when this religion takes complete control of a government, people who disgree with it are persecuted, e.g. Communist Russia.
Maybe you don't think humanism and communism are the same thing, but I belive if you follow humansim to its logical ends, you end up with a communist system.
Terry
QUOTE(92g @ Oct 7 2006, 08:22 AM)
Maybe you don't think humanism and communism are the same thing, but I belive if you follow humansim to its logical ends, you end up with a communist system.Terry
If you do an Internet search for "Darwin Marx Hitler Stalin" you'll get thousands of hits to articles linking this "Infamous Four."
One link in particular is a well-done treatment of Communism's rise out of the theories of Marx, who was heavily influenced by Darwin. It is at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/communism.asp.
Some highlights from the article:
QUOTE
Many of the central architects of communism, including Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels, accepted the worldview portrayed in the book of Genesis until they were introduced to Darwin and other contemporary thinkers, which ultimately resulted in their abandoning that worldview.
QUOTE
Many extremists were active before Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, in 1859, but since religious faith prevailed among both scientists and non-scientists before Darwin, it was very difficult for these radicals to persuade the masses to accept communistic (or other leftist) ideologies. Partly for this reason, Western nations blocked the development of most radical movements for centuries. Darwin, however, opened the door to Marxism by providing what Marx believed was a ‘scientific’ rationale to deny Creation and, by extension, to deny God.
QUOTE
In Marx’s words: ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history. … not only is it [Darwin’s book] a death blow … to “Teleology” in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is empirically explained’.15 Marx first read Darwin’s Origin of Species only a year after its publication, and was so enthusiastic that he reread it two years later.16 He attended a series of lectures by Thomas Huxley on Darwin’s ideas, and spoke of ‘nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries’.
QUOTE
The importance of Darwin’s ideas is stressed by Parkadze, a childhood friend of Stalin’s:
‘We youngsters had a passionate thirst for knowledge. Thus, in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin’s teachings. We were aided in this by … Lyell’s Antiquity of Man and Darwin’s Descent of Man, the latter in a translation edited by Sechenov. Comrade Stalin read Sechenov’s scientific works with great interest. We gradually proceeded to a study of the development of class society, which led us to the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin. In those days the reading of Marxist literature was punishable as revolutionary propaganda. The effect of this was particularly felt in the seminary, where even the name of Darwin was always mentioned with scurrilous abuse. … Comrade Stalin brought these books to our notice. The first thing we had to do, he would say, was to become atheists. Many of us began to acquire a materialist outlook and to ignore theological subjects. Our reading in the most diverse branches of science not only helped our young people to escape from the bigoted and narrow-minded spirit of the seminary, but also prepared their minds for the reception of Marxist ideas. Every book we read, whether on archaeology, geology, astronomy, or primitive civilization, helped to confirm us the truth of Marxism.’47
As a result of the influence of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, Darwin became ‘an intellectual hero in the Soviet Union. There is a splendid Darwin museum in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities struck a special Darwin medal in honour of the centenary of The Origin’.
‘We youngsters had a passionate thirst for knowledge. Thus, in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin’s teachings. We were aided in this by … Lyell’s Antiquity of Man and Darwin’s Descent of Man, the latter in a translation edited by Sechenov. Comrade Stalin read Sechenov’s scientific works with great interest. We gradually proceeded to a study of the development of class society, which led us to the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin. In those days the reading of Marxist literature was punishable as revolutionary propaganda. The effect of this was particularly felt in the seminary, where even the name of Darwin was always mentioned with scurrilous abuse. … Comrade Stalin brought these books to our notice. The first thing we had to do, he would say, was to become atheists. Many of us began to acquire a materialist outlook and to ignore theological subjects. Our reading in the most diverse branches of science not only helped our young people to escape from the bigoted and narrow-minded spirit of the seminary, but also prepared their minds for the reception of Marxist ideas. Every book we read, whether on archaeology, geology, astronomy, or primitive civilization, helped to confirm us the truth of Marxism.’47
As a result of the influence of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, Darwin became ‘an intellectual hero in the Soviet Union. There is a splendid Darwin museum in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities struck a special Darwin medal in honour of the centenary of The Origin’.
And it goes on and on.
You'll notice a common theme among many of the world's dictators here. Growing up in the church, showing promise as pastors or theologians, reading Darwin, abandoning the church, abandoning God, murdering millions. It's one of those "Duh," things if you don't get the connection.
To track the influence of Darwin through to the evil of Hitler and Nazism you should read up on Francis Galton and Margaret Sanger (who founded the euphemistically named Planned Parenthood), and how their Darwin-based racist eugenics theories influenced Hitler.
I believe it would be disingenuous to try to prove that Darwin and his theories directly "caused" any of the genocides committed in the 20th century. But, you'd have to be in complete, absolute, willingly ignorant denial to not recognize that what started as one man's God-hating worldview has been the catalyst to influence evil meglamaniacs to put into practice what Darwin espoused.
The tragedy is that it aint over yet. Public school indoctrination of our innocent children has reached almost total saturation what with the complicity of the govenment, the media, and even the church. Little wonder that there are so many juvenile "mass murderers" following in the footsteps of their genocidal heroes, going all the way back to Darwin.
Dave
QUOTE(CrisW @ Oct 7 2006, 08:26 AM)
1. Evolution is not religious. There are no altars.
You don't need one when you become your own god of your own reality.
QUOTE
no priests,
Darwin is the high priest.
QUOTE
no sacrifices,
Ever heard of Hitler? That idea he used was born from Darwin's theory.
QUOTE
and no one will burn you at the stake.
Nope, they will just gas you at the next chamber. Or sic the ACLU on you to sue you until you have nothing.
QUOTE
As to if it is false, I'm sure that if someone else comes up with a better theory as to how organisms change over time the scientific community would consider it.
As long as they do not have to admit to being wrong.
QUOTE
Genesis is about origins, and you are right, it has very little in common with either the big bang theory or any of the theories about planetary formation.
Ever heard of the gap theory? Do you know where that idea actually came from?
QUOTE
2. No, nothing is every proven 100%. But as we uncover more about the universe that we live in, we have to take some things as established facts even if they dont hold for every single case. General and Special relativity for example are very good descriptions of space-time, but they don't hold up at the scale of quantum effects but it doesn't make either Quantum theory or Relativity false. We also have to accept that the speed of light is a constant in both theories.
It changes for every theory it may conflict with. But stays the same for any creation theory, or evidence that might pop up. When theories or laws are applied and changed to support one view. But yet remain the same to debunk another. That is not science, it's called being bias.
QUOTE
3. There has never been any convincing proof for a young universe. Every cosmology I've seen that tries to describe what we see in the night sky in terms of a young universe has been pretty exotic and fraught with problems.
And there is really no known age of the universe either. How does so much matter, that supposetly came from one object. Have so many varying ages? And how does light date an object when no one knows how long the light has been there?
Example: Light that has travelled 18 billions years maybe comming from an object that is so old, we can't measure it's age. Can science actually date objects through speed of light, when this same speed of light does not apply to any object within our solar system?
The word firmament explains this.
How many firmaments are there, and what do they mean?
First off, most YEC believers make the mistake of assuming that when ever the word firmament is used. It's a reference to the Crystalline Canopy only. But, how do birds fly in the canopy? So this will be a break down of what each firmament is.
Firmament means: Arch, expansion, or to be compressed.
God's word uses the word firmament to show boundaries between physical things, or realms (heavens, God's word uses the word heaven in the place of realms, or parallel universe. So the word heaven is not always a reference to where God is).
gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
The first firmament is the formation of the Crystalline Canopy. This was done before the waters were receded of the face of the earth (Genesis 1:9). So the firmament created here was while the earth was still covered with water. And is the reason it says that it was created in the midst of the waters. This would fit the definition of a firmament being an arch or expansion.
gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
The second firmament is the creation of our atmosphere that we breathe.
And because the first firmament is made from water, and in the midst of water. The second firmament divides the water from the water (air being created-air in between). Which would be the canopy (water above), and the ocean (water below). And because the air is compressed (barometric pressure), it would fit the definition of being compressed, which equals a firmament..
gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
This is where the second firmament is given the distinction of being a heaven (a realm). This is because our atmosphere contains to types of life. Physical, which is all the we can see. And spiritual. eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
The third firmament is our solar system.
Creation of this created all things physical that made day, night, seasons, years. What this means is that everything with in our solar system was created just for time, and the existence of our planet. And because it is also referred to as heaven (realm), it is considered separate creation from the rest of space. Why? Because all that is with in this creation was made to support life that was contained on one planet. And is the very reason that the rest of what is in space is created later. Because of gravity, this also fits the definition of being compressed. And because our solar system is all around our planet, it also fits the definition of being an expansion.
gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
The forth firmament is space beyond our solar system.
This was when the stars and galaxies were created and set into space. And because this is also called a heaven (realm), it was a separate creation. And because this creation was not created to support life on the one planet earth. It was created differently. It was created for man kind to see the glory of the creation of God. This is why it is said that the light was to give light upon the earth (so we could see it). It never says anything about time, or a segment of time as to the reason why these lights (stars and galaxies) were created. The rule of creation beyond our solar system is the speed of light.
Example: When God said that these lights were created to give light upon the earth: And it was so. God made it so because natural light will not reach earth from such far distances. Why create things we cannot see? So as the light was made to shine upon the earth (as God made it so), the object that produced the light was made to age according to how far the light had to travel to reach earth (different creation rules because this creation is not based around supporting life). This is why everything was not created at once, it was created in different parts. There are different rules to how each created part would work, and why.
And because of gravity with in these systems, this would also fit the definition of being compressed. Which makes it fit with the word firmament.
gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
A confirmation of why the stars, galaxies, etc... were created.
gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
A confirmation of the second firmament being our atmosphere.
The word firmament is mentioned nine times in creation, and is found in seven verses. Seven is God's number of completion.
What this translates to is that we have two created timelines. One was created just to sustain physical life as we know it on planet earth (firmaments 1-3). Which includes all of the things God created with age, but without the passage of time (foundations of old).
Psalms 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
The other was created for visual only (to shine upon the earth), for us to see (firmament 4).
gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
This is why everything created with in our solar system does not fit the same guideline on how we date everything beyond it. Distance, and speed of light travel dates everything beyond our solar system. But can we apply this same rule to dating all that is contained with in our solar system? No. Only two different timelines, with two different rules for time can explain this.
Reference: Creation in detail.
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Oct 8 2006, 07:20 AM)
Example: Light that has travelled 18 billions years maybe comming from an object that is so old, we can't measure it's age. Can science actually date objects through speed of light, when this same speed of light does not apply to any object within our solar system?
We don't use light to date an object. The light hitting us from the sun was generated 8 minutes before we actually see it, that doesn't mean that the sun is 8 minutes old!
Likewise Proxima Centauri's light takes 4 years to get to us. We can figure this out by using the parallax method to work out how far away it is and as we already know the speed of light as a constant we can work out how long it took to get to us. So we can infer from this that the star Proxima Centauri was in existence 4 years ago.
We can carry on doing this with stars further and further away, until we get to stars like T Pyxidis http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star_c...ion/pr1997029c/
Now, if that star was exploding during creation week, how can we see stars further away than that?
QUOTE(92G)
The time argument is an illusion that most people don't think enough about. Implicit in the argument that time is the savior of evolution is the requirement for changes to be continous. We can look around us, and see that evolution is not taking place in a continous fashion, so the time argument is essentially not valid.
"Come on now! You know evolution occurs at such a slow rate that we can't actually observe it. All we can do is observe accumulated changes that have occured over the many millions of years. Evolution is based on indirect observation, this is true of partical physics as well. Do you not accept partical physics either?"
How was that?
Cris w: The parallax method is flawed. How? Light can be bent, right? So as light travels though space, for such long distances. There is no way that anyone can say the something is not bending the light that we see. The further away an object is, the greater the chances that something is bending it's light. It has already been proven that gravity can affect the travel of light. So, how many gravity objects does light have to travel by, from a object that is 4 billion light years away? Numerus? So how many times did it bend? No body knows.
And because the parallax method is based on light travel being a straight point from the object producing it, to us seeing it, at two points in space. We cannot deem this as an exact science.
Also, I see you skipped the rest of my post. I guess it's beyond your understanding.
Are we dating by speed of light travel again?
The timeline needed for natural light to reach us, is using speed of light to help date and support old universe, and old earth.
I explained this in my post. If you can't comprehend it, just list each one you don't inderstand (one by one) and I'll go into even more detail.
And because the parallax method is based on light travel being a straight point from the object producing it, to us seeing it, at two points in space. We cannot deem this as an exact science.
Also, I see you skipped the rest of my post. I guess it's beyond your understanding.
QUOTE(Cris w)
Now, if that star was exploding during creation week, how can we see stars further away than that?
Are we dating by speed of light travel again?
The timeline needed for natural light to reach us, is using speed of light to help date and support old universe, and old earth.
I explained this in my post. If you can't comprehend it, just list each one you don't inderstand (one by one) and I'll go into even more detail.
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Oct 9 2006, 01:52 AM)
Cris w: The parallax method is flawed. How? Light can be bent, right? So as light travels though space, for such long distances. There is no way that anyone can say the something is not bending the light that we see. The further away an object is, the greater the chances that something is bending it's light. It has already been proven that gravity can affect the travel of light. So, how many gravity objects does light have to travel by, from a object that is 4 billion light years away? Numerus? So how many times did it bend? No body knows.
And because the parallax method is based on light travel being a straight point from the object producing it, to us seeing it, at two points in space. We cannot deem this as an exact science.
Also, I see you skipped the rest of my post. I guess it's beyond your understanding.
And because the parallax method is based on light travel being a straight point from the object producing it, to us seeing it, at two points in space. We cannot deem this as an exact science.
Also, I see you skipped the rest of my post. I guess it's beyond your understanding.
Light can be bent by large gravitational fields. You are correct. Parallax is still good for stars up to 1600ly away.
What is this "something" that you say is bending the light? Usually when a large gravitational object bends light, we can see it and deduce the mass, therefore the gravitational pull and how much it has bent the light. This method is used in gravitational lensing.
We can deem parrallax as an exact science, as the tools and theories behind it are very precise.
What was the rest of your post you would like me to address?
Never mind. I see it was a waste of time to go to that much trouble.
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Oct 9 2006, 02:09 AM)
Never mind. I see it was a waste of time to go to that much trouble.
I can teach you how to measure star distances if you like.
QUOTE(CrisW @ Oct 7 2006, 08:26 AM)
1. Evolution is not religious. There are no altars, no priests, no sacrifices, and no one will burn you at the stake.
As to if it is false, I'm sure that if someone else comes up with a better theory as to how organisms change over time the scientific community would consider it.
Genesis is about origins, and you are right, it has very little in common with either the big bang theory or any of the theories about planetary formation.
As to if it is false, I'm sure that if someone else comes up with a better theory as to how organisms change over time the scientific community would consider it.
Genesis is about origins, and you are right, it has very little in common with either the big bang theory or any of the theories about planetary formation.
Evolution can be considered a religion on many levels. The atheist attempts to refute this by cherry picking the definition of religion. But, religion is also defined as; an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by. Which, by the way, is a pretty good definition for the actions of say a Richard Dawkins, who, as an atheist, is so obsessed with evolution (which is an unproven model) that he has waged an all out jihad on Christianity and God. But, it can be a good description for the atheist/skeptic humanist that claims the evolution is a proven fact (or what can be termed as the “Fundy atheist evolutionist) with absolutely no evidence to back up the claim.
Some in the scientific community have refuted the model of evolution, but still balk at a deity explanation (though they’ll tap-dance all around the language in doing so).
These quotes come to mind:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Dr. Robert Jastrow
"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." - Vera Kistiakowsky, MIT physicist.
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming." - Paul Davies, British astrophysicist
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." - Alan Sandage, Winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy
"...an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence." - Charles B. Thaxton. Ph.D,
"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." - Conrad H. Waddington, Professor of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh
QUOTE(CrisW @ Oct 7 2006, 08:26 AM)
2. No, nothing is every proven 100%. But as we uncover more about the universe that we live in, we have to take some things as established facts even if they dont hold for every single case. General and Special relativity for example are very good descriptions of space-time, but they don't hold up at the scale of quantum effects but it doesn't make either Quantum theory or Relativity false. We also have to accept that the speed of light is a constant in both theories.
Then why has the speed of light been shown to be slowing down in every measurement science has taken, since science has been measuring it?
QUOTE(CrisW @ Oct 7 2006, 08:26 AM)
3. There has never been any convincing proof for a young universe. Every cosmology I've seen that tries to describe what we see in the night sky in terms of a young universe has been pretty exotic and fraught with problems.
There is absolutely no empirically verifiable evidence for a universe millions of years old as well. As a matter of fact, there is only one scientifically plausible argument that can be posited by the evolutionists. And if you want to discuss it, I’ll be more than happy. But all the other hypotheses and models are easily unraveled… So while I wait, I’ll put up a few more quotes:
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.'" - Errol White,
"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."- L. Harrison Matthews,
"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others." - Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini,
"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists." - Walter James ReMine,
"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred." - Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics
"It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of palaeobiological facts. 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." - N. Heiribert- Nilsson, Professor, Lund University
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.