All of these people lived to these ages AFTER the forbidden fruit was eaten.
I'm aware of that. So why would man evolve a brain so far beyond what it's needed? This is a fact against evolution. (I'm waiting for ANY facts against creation)
Who knows? Why does the Bible skip over the existence of any other planets besides Earth? Did God not create those? Or were they just not mentioned because the book was written by a human and humans were unaware of other planets? Does this silence about other planets make God fallible?
This is a very weak argument relying on the belief that anything God didn't explain to us in the Bible makes God fallible. The Bible was not written to explain to us every single element of life and how all things work. If you ever read the Bible, it's even mentioned that there are things that we cannot understand, thus God doesn't even attempt to explain it. Our brains are not capable of understanding certain things.
The Bible wasn't changed because something was proven wrong, and people scrambled to justify their cause (like evolution). Mistranslation does happen obviously, but it doesn't make the Bible wrong or the concept of creation.
But what makes the Bible RIGHT about the concept of creation? Just because of whatever you've found on the Evolutionary Hall of Shame? I don't see any proof of creationism at all. And I've already addressed the Bible being proven wrong; God's infallibility just gets mentioned.
Look above where I completely discredit your claim regarding God being infallible. I can't prove to you creation is right. You can't prove evolution is right. Both of us are having faith in different places.
I wasn't aware that
Theory could
prove something wrong. Plus notice that the definition included facts and expirements? Please provide just
one experiment that produced life from non-life, recreating how it all started. Oh, you can't? There is NO PROOF that creation is wrong. Please provide it so I can agree you were right all along. In the meantime, i'll keep posting the facts against evolution.
As Lost said:
"Until this God of yours magically pops out of thin air in front of me just to chat or to ask for the time or whatnot, you've got no proof that this whole creationist belief is real."
I found this extremely interesting. Both you and Lost will not believe in creation, until God himself appears in front of you, giving you the proof you desire, however, you will believe it all happened by accident, without demanding the same proof to sustain this belief. In other words, you should be asking for someone to show you how life can appear from non-life, which has never and WILL never be created by man. You believe it happend by chance, but we can't recreate it? That's absurd.
I just skimmed the start of your article. I noticed a mention of the second law of thermodynamics, however, so I'll post this (
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html ):
"A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)
The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.
This made me laugh. Take the biggest holes in ones Theory, list those holes, and then claim anyone who mentions them CLEARLY has no clue what they are talking about. I thought this was great. More evidence that the evolutionists are willing to try anything to cover up the lack of proof supporting their claims. This reminds me of a criminal trial where the Defendant has to overcome damaging evidence against him/her. His attorney will want to bring up the most damaging evidence and discount it so that when you hear the prosecutor bring it up, you say "Ah...they warned us this would happen".
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.
This was my second favorite argument. In summary, "Plus, even though we know this is fact, nothing is perfect. We may be wrong now and then, and when that happens, we will just adjust our Theory so that it still seems to make sense. Of course we can't prove this 100%. Of course there are things wrong with it. But since some of it seems to make sense, and we really don't want to believe in the Bible...well, this is the best option."
Very weak. But since you brought up all the weak area's of evolution as only something a complete idiot would bring up, let me just focus on one concept that shoots the whole Theory down the drain. Let's focus on how it all started:
There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.
SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
Some the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules.
BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
LIVING CELL -
And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.
When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they ever happened. To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps. An artist's conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and then jumping to self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very misleading.
Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for granted by the popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery to evolutionary scientists.
Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. For example, iron is oxidized to form iron oxide or rust.
The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.
Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. This departs from the usual evolutionary theorizing where a uniformistic view is held (i.e. where processes remain constant over vast stretches of time). In this case the present is NOT the key to the past.
Instead, they propose a "reducing" (called thus because of the chemical reactions) atmosphere which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor. Newer schemes exclude ammonia and methane.
There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):
Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!
In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T).
Before you can assemble the large macro-molecules necessary for life you must have a ready supply of basic organic molecules. Imagine a primitive ocean. You need tons of sugars, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, etc. There are a number of severe obstacles that must be overcome in getting a suitable ocean:
Quantities - The first problem is overcoming the diluting effect of a vast primordial ocean. For example, a study which assumed use of the entire atmospheric supply of nitrogen for molecular formation indicates insufficient concentrations would result (Gish 1972, 10-11).
Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.
This point has not escaped the attention of evolutionists. "The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates [blobs]" (D. E. Hull, Nature, 186, 693 1960)(Gish 1972, 13)
Incompatibility - Another problem is that different molecules will react with one another. For example, amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?
Any plausible theory of the origin of life must include the formation of complicated macro-molecules like proteins, DNA and RNA. In addition, there are other necessary components of life such as lipids, carbohydrates, hormones, enzymes, etc. that must be formed and be utilized to produce life.
The syntheses of proteins from DNA is very complicated (see any biology textbook), and experiments to produce life in a test tube fall woefully short of creating life. There are a series of obstacles to the notion of life arising spontaneously from a sea of chemicals:
CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT - Some of the necessary component chemicals react with one another is counter-productive ways. For example, phosphoric acid which would be necessary to form DNA would form an insoluble salt with calcium (calcium phosphate), sink to the bottom of a primordial sea, and be unavailable to make DNA. (Gish 1972, 23).
POLYMERIZATION - How are the polymers formed in proteins and nucleic acids? A basic problem is that monomers never become polymers unless energy is supplied - they don't spontaneously arise. Protein formation in the laboratory requires a number of deliberate steps by a chemist. Experiments with catalysts and heating of dry amino acids have not demonstrated anything close to realistic life macro-molecules. (Gish 1972, 17-23)
SEQUENCES - This detail is at the center of the origin of life problem. Assuming that there WAS a large supply of molecular building blocks, how do you get the specific sequences necessary in proteins and in DNA? Consider proteins: the sequence of amino acids determines the way the molecule will "fold up", which gives it physical properties. For a particular function, an exact sequence is required. What are the odds of this occurring by accident? The odds of forming a specific molecule with 100 amino acids is (1/20) ** 100 = 10e130 (the number 10 with 130 zeros following it) to 1. Forget it!
Along these lines, the famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe (both atheists) calculated the probability of life forming by chance in five billion years on earth. The answer is 10e40000 to 1 (a number so close to zero as to effectively be zero). They then considered the universe with 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars and 20 billion years. Still no chance. Hoyle said the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747! (Which I posted earlier, and no one has been able to provide a calculation that is any different)
OPTICAL ISOMERS - Amino acids are found in L-amino (left) or D-amino (right) types and are formed in equal proportions in synthesis experiments. Animals and people are made of almost exclusively L-animo types. How is this selection made? ... Still an open question.
To go beyond proteins, DNA and RNA, and to assemble them into a working biological system is another mystery. We must go from disjointed molecules to complex interrelated systems that are capable of self-maintenance and self-replication.
One approach (Oparin's Coacervate Theory) is to try to construct coacervates (large blobs of colloidal particles) from molecules. Unfortunately, this merely holds together random molecules by electrostatic chemical bonds. (Gish 1972, 27).
Another scheme uses microspheres (Fox's Proteinoid Microsphere Theory) by the pyrocondensation of amino acids. But these are only random polymers of amino acids that are inherently unstable. There are no energy-utilizing systems, no replicating systems, etc. (Gish 1972, 30)
A biological system is more than a collection of molecules thrown together - these blobs have to be able to do something, they have to act as little machines with input and output related to some greater purpose in the cell. How a biological system could arise still remains in the realm of "science fiction".
Now we cross the line from the molecular to the living. Whether bacteria, animals, plants or people, we all have cells.
Cells consist of many biological elements that are enclosed in a cell membrane that allows certain molecules to pass out of it and let others in. It must be able to perform many functions: self-replicate, maintain itself by the construction of new proteins, regulate it's functions, etc.
Cells are tremendously complex and more complicated than any machine man has ever built. Even the smallest bacterial cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one hundred billion atoms.
The simplest cells are not more primitive than, or ancestral of, larger ones. This poses an immediate problem. How do you get all the complicated machinery to work at the same time? It either all works or nothing works. For example, the information to construct the apparatus to synthesize proteins is stored in the DNA. But the extraction of this information requires the apparatus to be in place already (Denton 1985, 269).
To explain the evolution of the cell requires imagining simpler "proto-cells". One such idea by Francis Crick (Denton 1985, 265) uses a proto-cell that is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation (termed "statistical proteins") to create new systems. This is challenged by the knowledge that even small errors cause devastating biological consequences.
In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists. It is such a problem that mainstream scientific literature even considers the possibility of life dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia" (Scientific American, Feb 1992). But even this only moves to problem one step outward.
The come back that Gray, Doom or Peon will most likely fall back on is the same argument used by most evolutionists. When evolution cannot explain any sequence (and this happens often) they tend to offer various, possible solutions to their conundrum in an attempt to provide a reasonable explination. The problem is that these are really just "educated guesses" at best. Can you imagine if I offered these same responses to my attempt to prove creationism? They would demand proof, wanting God himself to appear and provide them with every piece of proof. But the missing links in evolution are considered to be reasonable in their worlds without any proof required.
So let's just focus on the basic element of evolution. One of you give us the experiment, where life was created in a lab or witnessed by man, starting with no life at all.
Also, don't try to explain a special kind of life that was started that bypassed all current laws as we know it. If you do, then show some proof that THIS thing ever existed!
This should be interesting....