Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Chris7He]

God bless you riggable.

[unriggable]

God bless you riggable.

Me or riggable? (there is a regular riggable)

[Carebian Knight]

Why can't a teenager be smart enough, just because he does not have a fancy degree does not make someone stupid.

ex: During the Korean war a doctor and his medical aid were in the field, the doctor was killed. The aid assumed the doctors identity. Once back from the war he began reading everything he could about doctoring and with his prior medical aid knowledge was given a job in a hospital. By the time someone actually found out what he had done he was the head of an entire hospital in the USA. But they fired him because he did not have a fancy degree yet they did not fire the countless doctors HE had trained...

this helps prove my point that just because you haven't studied something in a collage or the such doesn't mean you don't know what you are talking about...so don't attach age to knowledge...

Nowhere in my post did I say anything about degrees. I'm not attaching age to knowledge, I'm attaching maturity to knowledge. There is no teenager in the world that is mature 100% of the time. When I said smart, I didn't necessarily mean brain power, I'm sorry it came out that way. I was stuck on your subject of intelligent teens.

That's really sad. You know there is a god, yet he doesn't do anything, he doesn't say anything, he doesn't show up, he doesn't do shit. Either that or he isn't actually there. The fact that a book written, interpreted and translated by people speaks for itself. It's not a god you worship, it's the bloated ego that blocks the facts from reaching your brain.

Spoken like a true non-believer. God does talk, you just have to be tuned to the right station, you can't say he doesn't do anything either you just have to watch the signs. You can ask anyone that knows me, believer or non-believer, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my brain.

Bavarian Raven: You misunderstood my point.

Backglass: Quit showing your immaturity, of course their are leprechauns, everyone knows they don't make their own gold coins, geez.

Why would God allow us to bring pain and fear upon ourselves? Why would he let such suffering happen? I'm not trying to question God's existence. I'm only trying question his "creation" of man. I feel that God didn't make and is just a divine guide that indirectly affects us towards a brighter path.

Again, spoken like a true non-believer. If you want to talk about God and the Bible, study up on them a little bit. He doesn't want to allow us to bring the pain and fear upon ourselves, it is our punishment for not obeying him. Same as your parents disciplining you, they don't want to do it, but they know it will help you down the road.

Is that why millions of Jews were murdered and most of the German officers escaped their just desserts, because they knew important information and technology about making missiles.

Why would millions of innocents die for something that others did. I imagine an onery fatass bastard looking at the paper and laughing when he reads about a suicide bombing. When does that fat bastard get his desserts?

Life is unfair and therefore, because God is NOT perfect or he does NOT directly INTERFERE with the events on Earth. I do believe in God and read a section of the Bible (not consecutively, skipping around). I believe God is responsible for the creation of the Universe and therefore indirectly the human race. I believe him more as a scientist and a loving father (a scientist who through experiments, by generating different Universes in an experiment decides what is best for us in this one before scrapping the plan in this one and moving onto the next.)

Judgement Day

Does he talk? Do you hear him speak? Why would it be in English? If its not words you hear, how do you know its god?

Yes he talks, no I don't, not full out, then again I never really sit down for a conversation. It would be in English because he is all knowing. I know it's God because there is no way I am that lucky.

[unriggable]

You might want to get yourself checked out if you hear things like that.

[Chris7He]

I don't exactly believe in Judgement Day....

I meant unriggable (you're awesome)...

[Bavarian Raven]

Is that why millions of Jews were murdered and most of the German officers escaped their just desserts, because they knew important information and technology about making missiles.

this is what happens when wars are fought...the winner views it better to "Save" the knowledge then let an even worse foe (cough, cough, stalin) get the info...and PS...over the course of his reign Stalin and China itself did things equally as horrible as Nazi Germany...god didn't help them either...

[WidowMakers]

_____

[WidowMakers]

_____

[WidowMakers]

_____

[WidowMakers]

OK I am done. I added these empty post so the entire 6 posts I did would be one 1 page.

There are about 60 pages worth of data in those posts. If you would like an easier to read version, here are the word documents.

01_Intro
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/6/15/ ... _intro.doc
02_Creation Evolution Comparison
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/6/15/ ... arison.doc
03_DNA_INFO_Laws
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/6/15/ ... O_LAWS.doc
04_Mutations_Natural
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/6/15/ ... ection.doc
05_Fossils_Rocks_Datingmethods
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/6/15/ ... ethods.doc


I know it is a lot but please read if you want to comment.

[WidowMakers]

WITHOUT USING YOUR BIBLE:
is there any actual evidence that you can point
to that shows the earth was created?

OK here we go. I will say this again.

There is no evidence either way to prove the earth was created or just happened by chance.

There are people out there who will say we have evidence the earth is young. There are people out there who say we have evidence the earth is old. The problem with BOTH side of this issue is that we can’t prove either.

What I can do is show how creation has a good scientific case. Meaning creation does not contradict things we see in nature and the natural processes. And at the same time there are many things that evolution claims that have never been seen in nature or are accepted as fact but never proven or is not actually science. Many of these claims have been accepted as fact regardless of the holes, issues and improbability of them individually and together in the entire evolutionary system.

Here is the big question.
Is there a creator that made everything or did everything happen naturally by chance?

Now I know one of the first things people will say (or have said in the past) is that they don't believe in a creator because it can't be proven and that they only believe in what science call tell them.

Well for those people I have some questions:

1) Can you really prove there is a creator?
If a creator existed before our universe and if that creator made our universe, the creator then exists outside our universe. And if the creator exists outside our universe, why does anyone think that we as humans should or could be able to "detect" or prove the existence.

2) Is believing only what science can prove a good idea?
By only believing in what science can prove, a person is saying that there is nothing beyond the scope of science. That eventually with enough time, all information about the universe is attainable to mankind. And if something is not provable then it is not real.

There are several issues with this ideology.

1) This assumes that everything is eventually understandable from a scientific perspective. By saying I will only believe in what science can tell me, a person is saying that nothing exists outside the realm of scientific observation. But no one can prove that there is nothing outside the realm of science so they can't really say that those things do not exist.

2) This assumes that man can eventually understand all that is understandable. Is this something that can be proven? When would man be able to say that everything is understood?

So based on these two points, there is a possibility that things exist that are beyond our comprehension, things beyond our physical realm and understanding.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIT ONE MINUTE!
You said that this topic was about comparing facts and actual evidence. We were going to look at each area and see how evolution and creation stack up to each other.

How can you then say there are things beyond our comprehension? Do you expect us to just say "OK, I believe in a creator now. Since I can't prove it or understand it, I might as well believe it."

Well that is not what I am saying at all. I am simple stating that just because we cannot prove there is a creator, does not mean that the physical world around us does not point back to a creator. Just as we cannot prove evolution, if the facts point back to the past and support that theory, a good case can be made for it.

[WidowMakers]

So here is a better way to ask the question

WITHOUT USING YOUR BIBLE:

1) How does any actual evidence (laws of nature, genetics, biology, geology, etc) make a case for creation or evolution?

2) And which model (evolution/creation) best explains the workings of the universe as we know it?

Here is a list of the things we will be looking at in this introduction:

A) Evolution vs. Creation-Why neither can be proved
B) Evolution and Creation Models
C) Why do you believe, what you believe?

Evolution vs. Creation-Why neither can be proved
Here is an explanation of why each side is not provable be science
Creation cannot be proved(1)

-Creation is not taking place now, so far as can be observed. Therefore, it was accomplished sometime in the past, if at all, and thus is inaccessible to the scientific method.

-It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place. The Creator does not create at the whim of a scientist.

Evolution cannot be proved(1)

-If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable, and, therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science. To transmute one kind of organism into a higher kind of organism would presumably take millions of years, and no team of scientific observers is available to make measurements on any such experiment.

-The small variations in organisms which are observed to take place today are irrelevant to this question, since there is no way to prove that these changes within present kinds eventually change the kinds into different, higher kinds. Since small variations (including mutations) are as much to be expected in the creation model as in the evolution model, they are of no value in discriminating between the two models.

-Even if modern scientists could ever actually achieve the artificial creation of life from non-life, or of higher kinds from lower kinds, in the laboratory, this would not prove in any way that such changes did, or even could, take place in the past by random natural processes.

Source (1) Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D pg. 4

Since it is often maintained by evolutionists that evolution is scientific, whereas creationism is religious, it will be well at this point to cite several evolutionists who have recognized that evolution also is incapable of being proved.

Evolution operates too slowly for scientific observation
One of the nation’s leading evolutionists, Theodosius Dobzhansky, has admitted:

"The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for ‘proofs’ of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory."(2)


Source (2) Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, Vol. 45 (December, 1957), p. 388

Note the tacit admission that "the experimental method" is an "impossibility" when applied to evolution.

Evolution is a dogma incapable of refutation
Two leading modern biologists have pointed out the fact that, since evolution cannot in any conceivable way be disproved, therefore, neither can it be proved.

"Our theory of evolution has become…one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus outside of empirical science,' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it'(Evolutionary ideas) have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." (3)


Source (3) Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, Vol. 214 (1967), p. 352

Evolution and Creation Models
Now we will look at the two models and compare the differences
The Evolution Model(8)
The evolutionary system attempts to explain the origin, development, and meaning of all things in terms of natural laws and processes, which operate today as they have in the past. No extraneous processes, requiring the special activity of an external agent, or Creator, are permitted. The universe, in all its aspects, evolves itself into higher levels of order (particles to people) by means of its innate properties.

To confirm that this is the essential nature of the evolution model, several recognized authorities are cited below, giving their own concepts of evolution.

• "Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos - from heavenly bodies to human beings - has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes." (4)
  
  Source (4) Rene Dubos, “Humanistic Biology,” American Scientist, Vol. 53 (March 1965), p.6.
• "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments'.Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." (5)
  
  Source (5) Theodosuis Dobzhansky, “Changing Man,” Science, Vol. 155 (January 27, 1967), p.409.
  
• "Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution -- a single process of self-transformation." (6)
  
  Source (6) Julian Huxley, “Evolution and Genetics,” Chap. 8 in What Is Science? Ed. J.R. Newman, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955), p. 272
• "Biological evolution can, however, be explained without recourse to a Creator or a planning agent external to the organisms themselves. There is no evidence, either, of any vital force or immanent energy directing the evolutionary process toward the production of specified kinds of organisms." (7)
  
  Source (7) Francisco J. Ayala, “Biology as an Autonomous Science,” American Scientist, Vol. 56 (Autumn 1968),p.213

Thus evolution entails a self-contained universe, in which its innate laws develop everything into higher levels of organization. Particles evolve into elements, elements into complex chemicals, complex chemicals into simple living systems, simple life forms into complex life, complex animal life into man.

Summarizing, evolution is: (1) naturalistic; (2) self-contained; (3) non-purposive; (4) directional; (5) irreversible; (6) universal; and, (7) continuing.


The Creation Model(8)
Diametrically opposed to the evolution model, the creation model involves a process of special creation which is:
(1) supernaturalistic; (2) externally directed; (3)purposive, and (4) completed.

Like evolution, the creation model also applies universally. It also is irreversibly directional, but its direction is downward toward lower levels of complexity rather than upward toward higher levels. The completed original creation was perfect and has since been "running down."
The creation model thus postulates a period of special creation in the beginning, during which all the basic laws and categories of nature, including the major kinds of plants and animals, as well as man, were brought into existence by special creative and integrative processes which are no longer in operation. Once the creation was finished, these processes of creation were replaced by the processes of conservation, which were designed by the Creator to sustain and maintain the basic systems He had created.

In addition to the primary concept of a completed creation followed by conservation, the creation model proposes a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature (since any significant change in a perfect primeval creation must be in the direction of imperfection).

Source (8) Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D pg. 10-11

Why do you believe, what you believe?

The issue then becomes, which sides conclusion is more likely, is more probable, is more consistent when looking at each area: geology, physics, genetics, biology, etc, which side tends to be more explainable more consistent across each area of study?
Reason for favoring evolution is not because of scientific evidence

…a theory so universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. (9)

Source(9) D.M.S Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929) p. 233.

So if you don’t want to believe in special creation (a creator making everything) you must believe in evolution regardless of how improbable it is.

My question to everyone is: Is evolution really science?
I would like you to read it all and decide for yourself if the claims make sense and are valid, then think about what are the implications of those claims?

-Is it more likely that a creator made everything or it just happened by chance?

-Why do you believe either way?

-A creator/god may not be provable but does that mean that a creator/god does not exist?

-If you do not believe in god, why not?

What is the reason?
Is it based off of any evidence?
Or just opinion and emotion?
-Is what we see and study in real life consistent with either of these models? I.E. Do any areas of study in either theory contradict what we see in reality or other aspects of themselves?

[WidowMakers]

Information / Laws / Rules
The universe is full of information and rules. Did this just happen by chance? Is that even possible? Here are a few areas that look at several aspects.
Here is a list of the things we will be looking at in this introduction:

A) DNA/Information-Where did it come from?
B) Thermodynamics-2 Laws
C) Probability-What are the Odds?
D) Comparison-Evolution vs. Creation

DNA/Information

Any hypothesis that involves life evolving from lifelessness, chemicals forming into complex cell structures, must explain the vast amount of information each cell has. Where the information came from and how it was encoded into the cell.

Fist off, information is not random. For it to be information and not just noise, it has to be an ordered structure that has a purpose. Information is only valuable if there is a means by which to read it and then use it. Randomly typing on a keyboard for 1 million years may eventually type a sentence that we can understand. But we understand it because the information has a purpose and structure already in place.


So looking at evolution, since it is completely random (has no direction) thus purposeless, how could it possible generate an informational structure that could be the building blocks for life.

There is no know law of nature, no know process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.(1)

Source (1) In the beginning was information by Gitt, W, pg. 107

-DNA is an information code…The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any information code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given. (2)


Source (2) The Natural limits of biological change by Lester,L., and Bohlin, R., pg. 157

Only minds compose information

Scientists with the SETI institute are using huge radio telescopes to search for messages from intelligent beings out in space. (The letters "SETI" mean Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence.)

They correctly state that intelligent messages
are created only by intelligent beings.

The first step in their search is to separate between static and message. So far all they have found is static, but if they find a message from space, they will have shown that there are intelligent beings out there somewhere. If exceptions existed, and intelligent messages could be sent out without any intelligence involved, their whole search would be meaningless.

"If the inference for an intelligent cause for DNA (and for life too, if DNA is truly necessary for life) is in error, than we would likewise be in error to infer the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence upon receipt of intelligible radio messages from deep space. More important, our knowledge of past civilizations provided by archaeologists would be in jeopardy. These supposed 'Artifacts' might be, after all, the result of unknown natural causes. Cave paintings, for example…may not be the result of early humans.…Indeed, excavated ancient libraries could not be trusted to contain the works of intelligent men and women."(3)

Source (3) Charles B. Thaxton, "In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes" Origins & Design, Summer 2001, p. 28-29.

Thermodynamics - The 1st and 2nd Laws

The First Law (Conservation of Energy)
states that nothing is now being either “created” or destroyed,
i.e. The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

The Second Law (Energy Decay)
states that every system always tends to move from order to disorder. (Entropy)
i.e. The amount of energy available for work is running out.

Since the First law stated that nothing is being added or taken away from the mass-energy pool of the universe, where did it all come from? It could not create itself. So how do we account for the sudden accumulation of mass-energy in the past?

And before anyone says that there is always increased order in the universe. Babies being born, building a house, grass growing are great examples of how energy input into a system provided increased complexity. But at what cost?

These systems of increased complexity are nowhere near 100% efficient (see Second Law). The complexity of the system might increase but that should not be confused with the total energy of the system.


Example:

-The sun sends light to the earth (loss of radiant energy because all light did not hit earth)
-Earth receives the light. The atmosphere warms and some radiant heat is reflected back to space (loss)
-The light that gets though helps plants grow (photosynthesis) and warms them (heat loss)
-The plants grow and produce waste (heat and CO2)

So increase complexity BUT loss of overall useable energy of the entire system (thus increased entropy because the universe is not 100% efficient).

Here are some definitions of the 2nd law 9 (4)
-In an isolated(*) system, a process can occur only if it increases the total entropy of the system.

Thus, the system can either stay the same, or undergo some physical process that increases entropy. (An exception to this rule is a reversible or "isentropic" process, such as frictionless adiabatic compression.) Processes that decrease total entropy of an isolated system do not occur. If a system is at equilibrium, by definition no spontaneous processes occur, and therefore the system is at maximum entropy.

*Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality (except for the universe as a whole)(4)

-Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.
Informally, "Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot (without work input)", which is obviously true from everyday experience. For example in a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when electrical energy is added. Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This is allowable in a non-isolated system, however only if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing, as required by the second law. For example, the electrical energy going into a refrigerator is converted to heat and goes out the back, representing a net increase in entropy.

-It is impossible to convert heat completely into work.

That is, it is impossible to extract energy by heat from a high-temperature energy source and then convert all of the energy into work. At least some of the energy must be passed on to heat a low-temperature energy sink. Thus, a heat engine with 100% efficiency is thermodynamically impossible.

Source (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system

Another defender of the theory of evolution, George Stravropoulos states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life and the impossibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist journal American Scientist:

Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. (5)

Source (5) George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science", American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977, p.674

So to recap:

1)1st law- Nothing is being added or taken away from the mass-energy pool of the universe. It could not create itself. So where did it come from?

2)2nd Law-If we assume the universe always was and is infinitely old (assuming the 1st law id correct and nothing is being added or taken away. It just always was), the Second law poses an interesting dilemma. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited (1st Law), and the amount of usable energy is decreasing (2nd Law), then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

Probability
Now we are going to look at what are the chances that chemicals could have actually combined by chance to form complex structures and the building blocks of life.

"Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene in its complexity must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.
"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4^1000 different forms.
"Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4^1000 is equivalent to 10^600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension." (7)

Source (7) Frank Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," in American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336-338.

If the proper code out of 4x10^1000 possibilities was not instantly produced, —then that first creature could not live! It could not make its enzymes and fulfill all its body functions! It could not perform cell division! It could not produce offspring! Everything had to be in place all at once—instantly!

Assembling the parts - GOLEY'S MACHINE
A communications engineer tried to figure out the odds for bringing a non-living organism with few parts (only 1500) up to the point of being able to reproduce itself.

"Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for all of its parts, and capable of assembling from those parts a second machine just like itself."(6)

Source (6) Marcel J.E. Goley, "Reflections of a Communications Engineer," in Analytical Chemistry, June 1961, p. 23.

Likening a living organism to a machine that merely reached out and selected parts needed to make a duplicate of itself, Goley tried to figure the odds for 1500 needed items—requiring 1500 right choices in a row.

Many different parts would be needed, and Goley assumed they would all be laying around near that manufacturing machine! Because many different parts would be needed, the machine would have to select from among dozens of different pieces near it.

But Goley assumes that its mechanical arm will have only a 50-50 chance of error in reaching out and grabbing the right piece! Such a ratio (1500 50-50 choices) is preposterous (it ought to be one chance in a hundred million for EACH of the correct 1500 selections from among 1500 items), but Goley then figures the odds based on such a one-in-two success rate of reaches.

But even with such a high success rate, Goley discovered that there was only one chance in 10^450 that the machine could succeed in reproducing itself! That is 1 followed by 450 zeros!
If you are unacquainted with large numbers, 10^450 is inconceivably large.
Let me explain it so you can understand the immensity of such large numbers: According to the experts, there are only 10^80 particles in the entire universe! If every particle in the universe were a machine trying to do this, and each machine was making decisions at a billionth of a second, there could still be only 10^107 attempts made in the entire universe in all time!
10^450 is immensely larger than 10^107, so it could never possibly be done.
1500 choices all made correctly, yet once the units were gathered in, each would then have to be put in the right positions and properly connected with one another—but that fact was not mentioned in Goley's calculation. (7)

Source (7) http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

TOO MANY PARTS
Just the number of nucleotides alone in DNA would be too many for Goley's machine calculations. There are not 1500 parts to work out the probabilities on—there are multiplied thousands of factors, of which the nucleotides constitute one factor.

(1)There are 5,375 nucleotides in the DNA of an extremely small bacterial virus (theta-x-174).
(2)There are about 3 million nucleotides in a single cell bacteria.
(3)There are more than 16,000 nucleotides in a human mitochondria) DNA molecule.
(4) There are approximately 3 billion nucleotides in the DNA of a mammalian cell. (People and most animals are mammals.)

Technically, a "nucleotide" is a complex chemical structure composed of a (nucleic acid) purine or pyrimidine, one sugar (usually ribose or deoxyribose), and a phosphoric group. Each one of those thousands of nucleotides within each DNA are all aligned sequentially in a very specific order (Imagine 3 billion complicated chemical links, each of which has to be in a precisely correct sequence)……

……..And even if the task could be successfully completed, when it was done, that organism would still not be alive! Putting stuff together in the right combination does not produce life……..

……..And even if it could produce life—all the various parts would have to be instantly assembled at once in order for that organism to continue to live beyond a split second! It would have to instantly be able to breath, think, move about, make necessary decisions, eat, digest, and reproduce itself, and more and more beside……...

………And once made, it would have to have an ongoing source of living food continually available as soon as it evolved into life. When the evolutionist's organism emerged from rock, water, and a stroke of lightning hitting it on the head,—it would have to have its living food source made just as rapidly. (7)

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^60. Such a number, if written out, would read: 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000.
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^60 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)."(8)

Source(8) I. L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Another thing we all must remember is that this process is completely random.

-Evolution does not know when or if it has put together a 98% correct chemical structure. Plus it is not intelligent so I cannot look into each structure and try to "figure out" the best workable combination.

-It cannot chose which chemicals react and which do not.

-It has no bias and no direction. So outcome cannot be determined by desire for life or more complex structures.

-In nature, chemicals and molecules desire to bond and reach a state of equilibrium (lower order steady state). Not only is the probability of proteins and DNA forming by chance statistically impossible, it ignores the fact that chemicals in DNA, proteins, etc would rather form less complex systems naturally.

Comparison
Now we will look back on all points and see how they relate to both evolution and creation.

Evolution

-Information does NOT rise out of disorder without intelligence
As stated earlier, SETI is looking for patterns in radio waves from outer space. Intelligent messages require intelligent beings. And by using all of our reasoning abilities the only way information is useful is if it is understandable. So not only did information accidentally happen, it is also accidentally comprehended by all other information and then became the building blocks and parameters for the entire universe.
So does it make sense to believe all of the laws of nature, DNA, the speed of light and every other thing in the universe that has information required to function could have happened by chance?

-Where did everything come from and the universe as a whole is moving from order into disorder (increased entropy)
If the universe started out as clouds of gas and blobs of energy, where did it all come from? According to the 1st law of thermodynamics energy-matter cannot be created or destroyed. So again, where did it all come from?
Let's assume it was here forever. If that was the case then all for the stars would have burned out by now. Their energy would have been released and absorbed by other things in the universe. And since, according to the 2nd law as well, cold objects cannot transfer energy to hot objects. So equilibrium would have taken place and the universe would be a constant temperature. From a broad sense, the formation of the universe took less organized energy and matter and through random process and explosions, stars, planets, the cosmos, and eventually life was formed.
That is completely opposite with how nature works. Gases in space do not clump together; explosions do not cause a more orderly environment; and heat/energy moves from higher levels of concentration to lower levels (sun heating the earth) not the opposite (less dense cold gas clumping up in space to form hotter masses eventually making the universe)

-What are the chances of life forming
If information did accidentally happen and chemicals were formed from nothing or were always there could molecules and eventually life form from them? Looking back at the numbers discussed earlier, there is no way these things can accidentally happen. The probability is so low that statistically they are impossible.
However, evolutionists claim that given enough time, these things can happen. But according to their timescales there is not even enough time in the history of the universe to accidentally make life, much less the time for that life to accidentally form into more complex forms and eventually us today. Plus, the improbability that the life forms were created in a place where food and life supporting habits were also accidentally formed needs to be thought out.

SO…..

-Source of information – Where did it come from?

-Source of matter/energy - Where did it come from?

-Universe is losing order – Opposite of evolution (formation of stars, planets, areas of less energy naturally forming areas of more energy)

- By Purpose or Accidentally – All of this happening by chance is so improbable it is impossible even with billions of years.

Creation
-Information does NOT rise out of disorder without intelligence
A creator would in turn have intelligence. All of the mysteries for the universe and its workings would be based on the creator intellect.
So, information came from the intelligence of a creator.

-Where did everything come from and the universe as a whole is moving from order into disorder (increased entropy)
If a creator existed before our universe was formed, the creator’s existence would be outside of this universe and dimension. So we cannot understand the workings, intelligence, mind of this creator. Since the creator existed before and outside of our universe, there is no reason why he could not have created the universe. But would a created universe obey the natural laws and tests that we see taking place today? This area again deals with the laws of thermodynamics.
Since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural process (only changed forms) a process outside of nature must have created it, a supernatural process. Since these supernatural processes cannot be studied or measured they cannot be proved true or false.
But if we assume a creator made our universe, the laws of nature fit well into place after creation. They are consistent and fit all of the natural processes that man can test and study in the world today.
-Universe formed with specific amount of matter/energy
-All systems are losing order from their initial stage

-What are the chances of life forming?
Again, if a creator was able to create our universe, creation of life is just as possible.


SO…..

-Source of information -Creator is the source of information

-Source of matter/energy -Creator is the source of matter/energy

-Universe is losing order – Consistence with a built universe. Once made it obeys the laws set forth by the creator

-By Purpose or Accidentally -If a creator existed that mad the universe, there would be a 100% chance.

[WidowMakers]

Mutations / Natural Selection

A) Mutation Types-How information is changed
B) Natural Selection-Variation within current information or vehicle to generate new information?
C) Beneficial Mutations – Are they possible?
D) Comparison-Evolution vs. Creation

Mutation Types-How information is changed
To better understand what genetic mutations are and how they affect a particular organism, we need to look at what they are exactly and how they occur.

How Do Mutations Occur? (1)
Everyone acquires some changes to their DNA during the course of their lives. These changes occur in a number of ways. Sometimes there are simple copying errors that are introduced when DNA replicates itself. (Every time a cell divides, all of its DNA is duplicated so that the each of the two resulting cells have a full set of DNA.) Other changes are introduced as a result of DNA damage through environmental agents including sunlight, cigarette smoke, and radiation. Our cells have built in mechanisms that catch and repair most of the changes that occur during DNA replication or from environmental damage. As we age, however, our DNA repair does not work as effectively and we accumulate changes in our DNA.

Some of these changes occur in cells of the body — such as in skin cells as a result of sun exposure — but are not passed on to children. But other errors can occur in the DNA of cells that produce the eggs and sperm. These are called germ line mutations and can be passed from parent to child. If a child inherits a germ line mutation from their parents, every cell in their body will have this error in their DNA.
Germ Line mutations are what cause mutations to run in families.

Mutation Types (1)
A gene is essentially a sentence made up of the bases A, T, G, and C that describes how to make a protein. Any changes to those instructions can alter the gene's meaning and change the protein that is made, or how or when a cell makes that protein. There are many different ways to alter a gene, just as there are many different ways to introduce typos into a sentence. In the following examples of some types of mutations, we use the sentence "The fat cat ate the wee rat" as a sample gene:

-Point Mutation - A point mutation is a simple change in one base of the gene sequence. This is equivalent to changing one letter in a sentence, such as this example, where we change the 'c' in cat to an 'h':
Original - The fat cat ate the wee rat.
Point Mutation -The fat hat ate the wee rat.

-Frame-shift mutation - Frame-shift mutations. In a frame shift mutation, one or more bases are inserted or deleted, the equivalent of adding or removing letters in a sentence. But because our cells read DNA in three letter "words", adding or removing one letter changes each subsequent word. This type of mutation can make the DNA meaningless and often results in a shortened protein. An example of a frame-shift mutation using our sample sentence is when the 't' from cat is removed, but we keep the original letter spacing:
Original - The fat cat ate the wee rat.
Frame Shift - The fat caa tet hew eer at.


-Deletion - Mutations that result in missing DNA are called deletions. These can be small, such as the removal of just one "word," or longer deletions that affect a large number of genes on the chromosome. Deletions can also cause frame-shift mutations. In this example, the deletion eliminated the word cat.
Original - The fat cat ate the wee rat.
Deletion - The fat ___ ate the wee rat.

-Insertion - Mutations that result in the addition of extra DNA are called insertions. Insertions can also cause frame-shift mutations, and general result in a nonfunctional protein.
Original - The fat cat ate the wee rat.
Insertion -The fat cat xlw ate the wee rat.

-Inversion - In an inversion mutation, an entire section of DNA is reversed. A small inversion may involve only a few bases within a gene, while longer inversions involve large regions of a chromosome containing several genes.
Original - The fat cat ate the wee rat.
Inversion -The fat tar eew eht eta tac.


-DNA expression mutation - There are many types of mutations that change not the protein itself but where and how much of a protein is made. These types of changes in DNA can result in proteins being made at the wrong time or in the wrong cell type. Changes can also occur that result in too much or too little of the protein being made.

Source (1) http://www.genetichealth.com/G101_Changes_in_DNA.shtml

From the information listed above we can see that all of the new mutated information has actually less that when it started. Taking and replacing, or shifting and deleting information does not increase the amount of data, it merely reorders current information into less comprehensible, lower level data.

The original information was lost and
no new usable information was gained.

Mutations are Random (2)
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:


Hypothesis A:
Resistant strains of lice were always there — and are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died a sudsy death.


Hypothesis B:
Exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations for resistance to the shampoo.

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance.

Esther and Joshua Lederberg (The Lederberg experiment 1952) determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

Do these mutations actually add any new information?
As we can see from the information above, there are several different types of ways germ-line mutations (the types of mutations that are passed on to each generation) can occur. Lets now analyze what is actually happening when a mutation of this type occurs.

When looking at any of the Original and Mutated sentences written previously, do any of these Mutation sentences actually add any information? No they did not. The simple rearranged previously occurring data. For an organism to increase in genetic complexity, they must gain useful genetic information. Let me put it another way.

Say we have a 50 page instructional manual that represents how the simplest life form needs to function and operate. It was already touched upon in a previous section that information cannot rise out of randomness but for this example lets assume it has. From this 50 page manual copies are made to spread the information around. As copies are made small RANDOM errors are made. Missing J here, an added P there, whatever. The point is mistakes happen and the information is slowly changed.

However, has any new information actually been added? Since complex organisms are thousands to millions of times more complex that the 50 page book, we would need to have millions of accidental random typos.

And not only would these typos need to fill up an entire encyclopedia of books to have the amount of information a more complex organize has, all of the material in the books would need to make sense.

So you tell me. Does it make sense that random errors in a 50-page book (smallest organism) could eventually lead to an entire encyclopedia set (large, complex organism) full of thousands of pages?

So information has been shifted, inserted, deleted, etc but not ADDED.
This is once again a case of random processes not being able to truly generate information. Mutations are random and have no foresight or knowledge of the environment or organism, nor do mutations have a desire to be beneficial or harmful

-For new information to be generated and integrated into a current set of instructions, knowledge and understanding of the current system are required to properly “install” the new code.
-Environmental exposure does not cause mutations.

Natural Selection-Variation within current information or vehicle to generate new information?
From the previous section we looked at the types of mutations that can occur within a particular organism. Now we will look at Natural Selection.

Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. (3)

Source (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

So does Natural selection increase the amount of information in a particular group of organisms? Or does it simply use the information currently there? Is Natural selection the vehicle to allow organisms to become more complex and eventually turn into a different species? Or does it just produce diversity within a particular species?

THE BASIC TEACHING of Natural Selection

"Modern evolutionary theory holds that evolution is 'opportunistic,' in the word of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson. At any point, it goes in the direction that is advantageous, often reshaping old structures for new uses. It does not know its destination, nor is it impelled to follow one particular direction."(4)

Source (4) R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 345.
"Natural selection allows the successes, but 'rubs out' the failures. Thus, selection creates complex order, without the need for a designing mind. All of the fancy arguments about a number of improbabilities, having to be swallowed at one gulp, are irrelevant. Selection makes the improbable, actual. "(5)

Source (5) Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 308.

How can total randomness select only that which is better,
and move only in advantageous directions?
Random occurrences never work that way.

Does anyone else see any issue with this? If I were to tell you that you could randomly type on a computer and eventually all of the spelling errors you made would be erased and the information would be ever increasing, would you believe me?

Steps of Natural Selection (6)
1.There is variation in traits.For example, some beetles are green and some are brown

2.There is differential reproduction.Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

3.There is heredity.The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

4.End result:The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.



So we see here from these 4 steps that natural selection is what we defined earlier.

Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.(3)

But again, did this add any new information to the group. Actually it did the opposite. Since the green beetles are now gone, any genetic information they had is lost (unless they are reintroduced to the population). This certainly does not sound like evolution.

The amount of information in the population is actually decreasing with the loss of the green beetle.

What Natural Selection Is NOT (7)
Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress — but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.

Source (7) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_32

So what can Natural Selection Really Do?
No one is arguing that natural selection is not true. It has been seen through nature time and again. Variation within a species (dogs, cats, insects, birds, etc) is easily seen and studied. The issue at hand is whether this variation within a species can eventually produce a new species (True Evolution).
I know we have been through this before. Some people say natural selection is evolution and some don’t. People have different definitions of what evolution actually is so I am going to define it for this topic.

Evolution is the process by which a particular organism gains genetic information, becoming more complex and eventually separating itself from the previous population, with the eventual change from one species over time into another.

Based on this definition (which is what scientists claim evolution ultimately is), Natural Selection with or without random mutations CANNOT cause the rise of a new species.


Variation within a species-YES
Development of a new species-NO


Beneficial Mutations – Are they possible?
With all of this discussion on mutations, lets look at whether these mutations are good or bad for the organism. Have mutations improved the viability of things? Or have the increased the genetic problems (genetic load) and made less robust creatures?

NOT ONCE (14)

Source (14) http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch14a.htm

Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes) that was a permanent one, passing on from one generation to another!

Read the above paragraph over a couple times. If, after millions of fruit-fly mutation experiments, scientists have never found one helpful and non-weakening mutation that had permanent effects in offspring then how could mutations result in worthwhile evolution?

"Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism's central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?" (8)


Source (8) C.P. Martin, "A Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, p. 102.

ONLY HARM
The problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not outright kill, are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then, work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations life on earth would not be strengthened and helped, it would be extinguished.

This gradual build-up of harmful mutations in the genes is called genetic load.

"The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful a even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a 'load,' or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool. The term `genetic load' was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals." (9)


Source (9) *Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98.

ALL AFFECTED
Mutations tend to have a widespread effect on the genes.

"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual." "This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." (10)


Source (10) Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164.

Well, that settles the whole matter. Evolution by mutation is totally impossible. Every mutation takes its toll on ALL the genes, directly or indirectly, and since 99 percent of the mutations are harmful and appear in totally random areas, they could not possibly bring about the incredible life-forms we find all about us.

Since each altered characteristic requires the combined effort of many genes, it is obvious that many genes would have to be mutated in a good wa y to accomplish anything worthwhile. But almost no mutations are ever helpful.

More generations of fruit flies have been experimented on for mutational effects, than mankind could have lived for millions of years! This is due to the fact that a fruit fly produces "a new generation" in a few short hours; whereas a human generation requires 18-40 years, and researchers in many locations have been breeding fruit flies for 80 years.
Thousands and thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated in the hope of producing worthwhile mutations. But only damage and death has resulted.

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs." (11)

Source (11)T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.

MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Assuming that all mutations were beneficial in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations, not just one all occurring at the same time In the same organism!

The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 10^14).
What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honey bee; he has not changed from one species to another.
More related mutations would be needed.

Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed.

Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 10^28). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together do not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.
But ALL those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial, whereas in real life mutations very rarely occur, and they are almost always harmful.

"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility arid viability of the affected organism." (12)


Source (12) C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.

AGAINST ALL LAW
After spending years studying mutations, this is how 'Michael Denton, an Australian research geneticist, finalized on the matter:

"If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms.

"The fact that systems (such as advanced computers), in every way analogous to living organisms, cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?." (13)

Source (13)Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 342.

MUTATIONS ARE VERY HARMFUL(15)

[list=]Source (15)http://www.evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a14a.htm

[/list]
Over and over again, teamed scientists have declared that mutations are harmful. In this section we will consider some of their statements In regard to this matter.

How can mutations have produced all the marvels of nature, when they are so very harmful? Evolutionists have no answer to that question. They merely counter by saying, "Well, mutations did it anyway." That may be their opinion, but it is neither scientific nor logical.

When scientists do speak out on this subject, they generally modify their remarks to include "almost all" mutations are harmful. They do that (1) because it is scientific not to say 100 percent, since someday a useful mutation might be discovered, and (2) to say that all mutations are harmful would be to admit that they could not possibly be the mechanism for evolution. But, in reality, there is not one known instance of a non-weakening mutation anywhere!

The classic example is sickle-cell anemia: it is said to be "beneficial," because it helps Africans resist malaria. Which scientist is willing to acquire sickle-cell anemia in order to lessen his chances of getting malaria? There are none, for, all aside from malaria, sickle-cell anemia itself terribly weakens the system and shortens life.

Here is what the scientists tell us about the dangers of mutations:
"Harmful."

"Like radiation-induced mutations, nearly all spontaneous mutations with detectable effects are harmful." (16)


Source (16) Arthur Custance, Longevity in Antiquity (1957), p. 1160.

"Useless, detrimental or lethal."

"If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental or lethal." (17)


Source (17) W. R. Thompson, Introduction, Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

"Deleterious . . harmful."

"The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful." (18)


Source (18)Peo C. Koller, Chromosomes and Genes (1971), p. 127.

"Bad."

"Most of the mutations are bad. In fact the good ones are so rare that we can consider them all as bad."

Source (19) H.J. Muller, Time, November 11, 1946, p. 38.

"Poor material for evolutionary progress."

"'Creatures with shrivelled-up wings and defective vision, or no eyes, offer poor material for evolutionary progress.' "(20)


Source (20) E.W. MacBride, quoted in H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 75.

"Harmful."

"The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism." (21)

Source (21) Animal Species end Evolution, pp. 170, 39.

Degenerative.

"The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a tendency towards degeneration." (22)

Source (22) Sewall Wright, in *Julian Huxley (ed.), The New Systematics (1949), p. 174.

"Harmful.. eventually die out [along with those having them]."

"According to this conception, all the adaptations of living things must have arisen through the survival and reproductions of those mutations which happened to give by-products favorable for gene continuance, or, as we say, for life. But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99 percent are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrence. These harmful mutations, however, eventually die out naturally, because of the lower ability to live, or the lower viability, of the individuals containing these mutated genes." (23)

Source (23) H. J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 38.

"Disastrous results."

"The problems of tailoring a gene and inserting it in human sperm or egg, making it hereditary, are so many and so little understood at present that reasonable prediction would place that in a future very remote indeed. Moreover, the human (or any other viable and natural) gene system is so intricately balanced that insertion of a foreign element, however well specified in itself, would probably have disastrous effects.."


Source (24) G. G. Simpson, Biology and Man (1969), p. 129. "Inferior. . in viability and competitive power."

"Mutations, even if they can surpass the mother species in certain respects, are nevertheless inferior in respect of total viability and therefore in competitive power."


Source (25) H. Nilsson American Nature, Vol. 57.

"Deleterious . . degeneration and extinction."

"The mutants which arise are, with rare exception, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters. Some of them are deleterious apparently in all environments. Therefore the mutation process alone, not corrected and guided by natural selection, would result in degeneration and extinction." (26)

Source (26) Theodore Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, " in American Scientist, Vol. 45, December 1957, p. 385.

"Harmful . . kill . . impairment . . detrimental

"Mutation and mutation rates have been studied in a wide variety of experimental plants and animals, and in man. There is one general result that dearly emerges: almost all mutations are harmful. The degree of harm ranges from mutant genes that kill their carrier, to those that cause only minor impairment.
"Even if we didn't have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutations would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost c
ertain to impair ft." (27)

Source (27) James Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation" in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist.

Comparison-Evolution vs. Creation
Now we will look back on all points and see how they relate to both evolution and creation.
Evolution

-Mutations do not add new or improved information.
For evolution to occur, new information in the reproductive cells (a Germline mutation) must be produced. Based on the types of mutations DNA goes through, new information is not generated. Information is rearranged and the original message is lost. Sure “new” information is generated but not understandable.

Original - The fat cat ate the wee rat.
Frame Shift - The fat caa tet hew eer at.

As we see here from this example of Frame-Shift mutation, “new “ information is formed (caa tht hew eer at) but it is meaningless and the entire original message has been lost.

-Natural Selection only varies genetic information that is already there.
If natural selection is just a process in which Germline mutations are passed on offspring, it cannot be the vehicle for evolution. Since mutations change and corrupt DNA (lose information and viability), Natural Selection passes on that data.
We see many types of different animals within the same species, dogs, cats, flowers, insects, horse, etc. These organisms are not evolving; they are varied within a species, and only allowed to change to the degree that their current DNA will allow.

-Mutations are harmful
For evolution to work, not only would mutations need to add new information and get that new information to the next generation, they would need to not be harmful to the organism.
Mutations kill. It is as simple as that. Rearranging genetic code randomly is not a good thing. For this reason, it is very difficult to see how such a large percentage of bad mutations, which at least do nothing and a most kill the organism, are a vehicle for increasing the complexity of things and leading to new species.

SO…..

-Mutations result in loss of information - Then where does new information come from tha evolution requires?

-Natural Selection uses current information – Then how can that be used to make more complex systems and organisms?

-Mutations are harmful – Then how can species evolve when an increase of genetic viability is required but not given.

Creation

-Mutations do not add new or improved information.
From the creation perspective, new information is not required. All living things were originally created with genetic code. As generation upon generation continued, mutation began to corrupt the DNA.
Information reducing mutations are consistent with creation. All initial data (creation) is slowly being corrupted (2nd law).

-Natural Selection only varies genetic information that is already there.
Once again Natural Selection clearly fits within the creation model. All of the initial organisms were created with a full instruction manual (DNA). As these species (which were clearly defined and distinct) began to increase in numbers, different information form the parents would make the offspring. As the population began to increase and spread, populations of species with varying genetic code (again within the species) would become spread out. Then as these populations continued to reproduce, some attributes would become lost due to Natural selection.

Example Dogs: (28)

Source (28) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... apter2.asp
The master program that determines that a dog is a dog, as well as a poodle variety of dog, is carried in its genes. A dog/wolf has tens of thousands of genes. We need to understand that creatures inherit two copies of each gene—one from each parent.

The two copies can be different—then they are called different ‘alleles.’ An offspring can get only one of each gene pair from each parent.

Let us consider gene-pairs represented as ‘A’ ‘a’ ‘B’ ‘b’ ‘C’ and ‘c.’
Now, let’s imagine a creator makes the original dog/wolf kind, a male and a female, each having three pairs of genes in the following combination:
Aa Bb Cc
From these two dogs we can get many different combinations in the offspring. For example, the mating of
Aa Bb Cc (male dog) x Aa Bb Cc (female dog)
can produce 27 different combinations of these genes in the offspring. Consider the following five:


Note that each of the five offspring all have dog genes obtained from their parents. However, they each have a different combination of genes than the parents. Thus, even though they are still dogs, they will each look slightly different from each other and from the parents.

Eventually, small groups of dogs started splitting away from the main group and went off by themselves in different directions. As a result, small populations of dogs were separated from each other. This obviously split up the gene pool, resulting in a number of populations with different combinations of genes.


Some of the combinations resulted in features that are better able to survive in a particular environment. For instance, in a cold climate, dogs, which carried more of the genes for thick furry coats, would survive better than their companions that had less of a coat, but still had some for thin fur. So the thick-furred dogs were more likely to survive and pass on those genes.
In time, the population might end up only having genes for thick fur and none for thin. So these dogs have become specialized (adapted) to cold areas. But this situation does not explain ‘molecules-to-man’ evolution because this population has come about through natural selection getting rid of the genes that code for thin fur.

-Mutations are harmful
As explained above harmful mutations are not a problem for a creator. Sure they still have negative effects and they are not wanted. But they are not needed to explain the means by which live came into being.

SO…..

-Mutations result in loss of information – This makes sense because new information is not needed because all things were created with the information they needed.

-Natural Selection uses current information – This again is shown in the natural world. Created organisms are varied by means of natural selection based on the genetic information they already have.

-Mutations are harmful – Bad for a particular species but not evidence against creation.

[WidowMakers]

Rock Layers / Dating Methods / Fossils

A) Rock Layers – How and when were they classified?
B) Radiometric Dating Methods – Are they reliable?
C) Fossils – Are they a window into evolution?
D) Comparison-Evolution vs. Creation

Rock Layers – How and when were they classified?
One of the arguments for evolution is the layer of rock and the fossils within them. Well let’s look at how these rock layers were thought to have formed and how they relate to dating fossils.

When were Rock Layers Dated?
I guess before we get to how rocks are dated, lets look at when the layers got their original dates. A much more in depth history of the people and times can be found here: http://www.grisda.org/origins/08059.htm
THE PERIODS:

Quaternary - 1829
Tertiary - 1759
Cretaceous - 1822
Jurassic - 1795
Triassic - 1834
Permian - 1841
Carboniferous - 1822
Devonian - 1837
Silurian - 1835
Ordovician - 1879
Cambrian - 1835

THE ERAS:

Cenozoic - 1841
Mesozoic - 1841
Paleozoic – 1838

What is interesting is that all of these dates were determined and classified before Radiometric dating was established (1950’s see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating).

Regardless of whether Radiometric dating is accurate or not (we will look at that in a moment), how were these dates above figured out?

What was the initial method,
for dating rock layers?

But before that here is a definition that evolutions use to explain past events.

UNIFORMITARIANISM
A basic postulate of evolution is the concept of uniformitarianism. According to this theory, the way everything is occurring today is the way it has always occurred on our planet.
This point has strong bearing on the rock strata. Since no more than an inch or so of sediment is presently being laid down each year in most non-alluvial areas, therefore no more than this amount could have been deposited yearly in those places in the past.
Since there are thick sections of rock containing fossils, therefore those rocks and their contents must have required millions of years to be laid down.

How are Rock Layers Dated? (1)

Source (1) http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch17b.htm

There are vast quantities of fossils, scattered in various sedimentary strata throughout the world. Evolutionary scientists have sought to date the rocks from the fossils and then date the fossils from their theories about the rocks!

REAL HISTORY
Real history only goes beck about 4,500 years. The First Dynasty in Egypt has left us records that date back to about 2200 B.C. (corrected, Manetho's account reaches to 3500 B.C.). Moses began writing part of the Bible about 1480 B.C. He wrote of events going back to 4000 years B.C.
Yet evolutionists claim that they can date this rock or that rock going back into the millions of years! The entire geologic column from bottom to top is supposed to have taken 2 billion years, with millions of years being assigned to each level of strata. On what basis do those presume to think they can assign such ancient dates to the origin of various rocks? With the exception of some recently-erupted volcanic lava, no one was present when any rocks were laid down. A man picks up a piece of rock from the distant past, and, although he himself may be only half a century old, he claims to be able to date that rock as being 110 billion years old!

NOT DATED BY APPEARANCE
Rocks are not dated by their appearance, for rocks of all types (limestone, shale, gabbros, etc.) may be found in all evolutionary "ages." Rocks are not dated by their mineral, metallic, or petroleum content, for any type of mineral may be found in practically any "age."

NOT DATED BY LOCATION

Rocks are not dated by the rocks they are near. The rocks above them in one sequence may be the rocks below them in the next. The "oldest rocks" may lie above so-called "younger rocks." Rocks are not dated by their structure, breaks, faults, or folds. None of this has any bearing on the dating that evolutionists apply to rocks. Textbooks, magazines, and museum displays give the impression that it is the location of the strata that decides the dating, but this is not true.
"It is, indeed, a well-established fact that the (physical/stratigraphical) rock units and their boundaries often transgress geologic time planes in most irregular fashion even within the shortest distances." (2)

Source (2) J.A. Jeletzsky, "Paleontology, Basis of Practical Geochronology, " in Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, April 1956, p. 685.

NOT DATED BY VERTICAL LOCATION
Rocks are not dated by their height or depth in the strata, or which rocks are "at the top," which are "at the bottom," or which are "in the middle." Their vertical placement and sequence has little bearing on the matter. This would have to be so, since the arrangement of the strata shows little hint of uniformity anywhere in the world.

NOT DATED BY RADIOACTIVITY
The rock strata are not dated by the radioactive minerals within them. The dating was all worked out decades before anyone heard of or thought of radioactive dating. In a few section we will discuss that there are so many ways in which radiometric dating can be incorrect; that we dare not rely on uranium and similar minerals as reliable dating methods.

DATED BY FOSSILS?
They are said to be dated by FOSSILS! Well, now we have arrived at something concrete. The strata are all mixed up, piled on top or under where they should go, or totally missing. But at least we can date by all their fossils.
But wait a minute! We cannot even use 99 percent of the fossils to date them by, since we can find the same type of fossils in one stratum as in many others! And in each stratum are millions of fossils, representing hundreds and even thousands of different species of plant and/or animal life. The result is a bewildering maze of mixed-up or missing strata, each with fossil prints from a wide variety of ancient plants and animals that we can find in still other rock strata.
Yet, amid all this confusion, evolutionists tell us that fossil dating is of extreme importance. That is very true, for without it the evolutionary scientist would have no way to try to theorize "earlier ages" on the earth. Fossil dating is crucial to their entire theoretical house of cards.
But if rocks cannot be dated by physical appearance, location, or even most of the fossils they contain how are the rocks dated?

ROCKS ARE DATED BY INDEX FOSSILS!!!
They are dated by what the evolutionists call "index fossils." In each stratum there are a few fossils, which are not observed quite as often as the other strata. As a pretext, these are the fossils, which are used to "date" that stratum and all the other fossils within it!

FOSSILS ARE DATED BY A THEORY
But now comes the catch: How can evolutionary geologists know what dates to apply to those index fossils? The answer to this question is a theory!

Using fossils as guides, they began to piece together a crude history of Earth, but it was an imperfect history. After all, the ever-changing Earth rarely left a complete geological record. The age of the planet, though, was important to Charles Darwin and other evolutionary theorists: The biological evidence they were collecting showed that nature needed vastly more time than previously thought to sculpt the world.(2)

Source (2) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 33_01.html

Darwinists theorize which animals came first and when they appeared on the scene, and then they date the rocks according to their theory not according to the wide mixture of fossils creatures in it but by assigning dates based on their theory to certain "index" fossils.
The conclusions about which fossils came first are based on the assumptions of evolution.

Rock strata are studied, a few index fossils are located (when they can be found at all), and each stratum is then given a name. Since the strata are above, below, and in-between one another, with most of the strata missing in any one location just how can the theorists possibly "date" each stratum? They do it by applying evolutionary speculation to what they imagine those dates should be.

This type of activity classifies as interesting fiction, but it surely should not be regarded as science. As is mentioned in the quotation below, it was the evolutionary theory that was used to date the fossils; it was not the strata and it was not "index fossils."


CIRCULAR REASONING
Towering far above nearly every other is FOSSIL EVIDENCE as the basis for evolution. Yet when we examine it we find it to be based on circular reasoning.
To develop dates Evolutionists:

(1) use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils,
(2) and then use their theory of fossils to date the rock strata!

This reasoning is greatly flawed.

Radiometric Dating Methods – Are they reliable?
Well what if the original dates are true, can radiometric dating proved this.
Well first of all, as described above the dates were based on a theory that evolution is true. They were not based on any scientific fact, just the assumption that evolution requires millions of years.
So what are the odds that these blind guesses would be supported by newfound scientific tests? And how do these tests work? What are there assumptions? And are there any issues with them?


A Good Guess
Since it was shown that the rock layer dates were established before radiometric dating was even a thought. How likely is it that the newfound technology would accurately test what was blindly decided decades before.

There are several ways this could have worked out:
1) The initial estimates were very close even thought there was no factual evidence to determine them. Then when radiometric dating came along those new tests validated the previously determined dates. Basically: A VERY, VERY GOOD GUESS
2) To fit the previously determined dates into the ages dated by the new radiometric dating method, assumptions were made to get the dates that people wanted.
Basically: Making the test say what you want it to say.

So what do you think is more likely:
1) A new test is developed that agrees with previously developed data based on a theory.
2) Certain assumptions are made to the test that allows the outcome to be what the tester desires.

Types of Tests, How they work
and assumptions that are made
There are many different types of radiometric dating methods. We will focus on some of the major ones at this particular time. Here is a brief description of three methods.

(1) Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and thorium into radium, helium, etc., and finally into lead.
(2) Potassium-argon dating, based on potassium into argon and calcium.
(3) Radiometric Carbon dating, based on ratio of C12 to C14

We will look into these three methods in depth in a moment but first we need to address some of the assumptions that are used in making these calculations. Since all of these dating methods aim at finding out the actual age of different materials none of the initial conditions of those materials or the environment are know. If these assumptions about these variables are off, the outcome of the data wouldn’t be accurate.
Here is a list of the assumptions used in radiometric dating.

SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS (3)
(1) Each system has to be a closed system, that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay processor the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years!
But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.

(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.
But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance, or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess, they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do!
The rock may have been placed there at Creation. If so, it may well have had a variety of radioactive substances both parent and daughter products originally in it. But there are also other ways that the daughter product sat various points in time could have been present in the rock and contaminated the original specimen, throwing off the clock.

(3) The decay rate must never have changed. Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct. A number of variable factors could have changed the decay rate from what it is now. Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.
The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past.

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered

[1] If the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.);
[2] If there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation.
[3] If physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral.
[4] If certain chemicals are brought in contact with the material.

"The deviations [in decay rate] are a function of the environment. . we are each convinced that the thesis of 'decay independence' and the thesis of 'decay constancy' needs considerable revision and reexamination . . at a minimum, an unreliability factor must be incorporated into the age dating calculations. "(4)

Source (4) J. Anderson and *G. Spangler, "Radiometric Dating: Is the 'Decay Constant' Constant?" in Pensee, Fall, 1974, p. 34.

(4) Long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past! That is what one researcher found evidence of. *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances.

"His [Joly's] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods ." (5)

Source (5) A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Dat

This problem of variation in decay rates is important. Any one of the four decay-rate factors mentioned above (particle bombardment, nearby radioactivity, pressure from rocks, chemical contamination) would be sufficient to accomplish the changes that Joly found in radioactive halos.

(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.

Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1,530 yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1-meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change from what the condition is now, in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air.

"So far there is no proof independent of the method, that the cosmic ray intensity has remained constant, and however reasonable it may be, we must rank this as a pure assumption. "(6)

Source (6) J.R. Arnold, Nuclear Geology (1954), p. 350.

(6) Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals
The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles (724 km) above us and is intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3-4,000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.
But we know next to nothing about this belt; what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.

(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning. It is assumed that no daughter products were present; only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain.
For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation or a major world-wide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with an "appearance of age."

Evolutionary theorists tell us that originally there was only uranium, and all of its daughter products (radioactive isotopes farther down its decay chain) developed later. But "appearance of maturity" at the Creation would mean that, much of the elements now classified by evolutionists as "daughter products," were actually original not daughter-products, and were already in the ground along with uranium, instead of being produced by it.

Source (3) http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm

After looking at these assumptions. Is there any one of them that we can be 100% sure about? If not, any test that uses these assumptions cannot be determined to be 100% accurate. And actually as we will see, some of these assumptions greatly skew the results of the test.

Here again is a quick list of assumptions and issue with these dating methods. (3)

(1) No contamination could have been present, although out in nature it is very much present most of the time.
(2) No daughter products could initially be present, although there is no valid reason why they could not initially have been present in great abundance.
(3) The decay rate could never change, although there are a number of significant outside factors which could easily have effected those changes.
(4) The Van Allen radiation belt must never have changed, although our first data on it only goes back to 1959.
(5) The decay clock within each radioactive substance had to start at the beginning, but Creation would have begun with flowers, trees and other items in full maturity, so why not radioactive cycles as well?
(6) No end products could originally be mixed in with the parent substances, but this is merely another assumption.
(7) No leaching of radioactive substances could have taken place, but those substances were out in nature where rainfall and underground water is constantly flowing, not in a sterile laboratory.
(8) No neutron capture could have occurred, but research reveals that it can easily occur in nature.
(9) According to the theory, the earth was originally molten. If that were true, then radical resetting of radioactive clocks would have occurred.
(10) The daughter products must be measured as a ratio of the parent substance in order to obtain a date, but, aside from leaching and other factors, some of the daughter products go off in the form of gases.
(11) Laboratory analysis of each specimen must be done with extreme accuracy, yet verification has revealed that this is often not done.
(12) All specimen test results should agree with one another, but this occurs with only the most extreme rarity. The dates obtained greatly conflict with one another.

URANIUM DATING(3)
Many people are familiar with Uranium Dating. I am not going to go into it but here is a link that explains how scientists use it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-uranium_dating.

What we now must look at is what factors could influence and alter the outcome of these tests.
(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end-product.
In addition, there is "common lead, "which has no radioactive parent (lead 204). This could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (Scientific Monthly, November 1957). Faul, an authority in the field, recognized it also:

"It is very likely that 'primordial lead,' or the lead that was made with all the other elements at the time of nucleogenesis, was well mixed. When the earth's crust was formed, the primordial lead was frozen into rocks that also contained uranium and thorium in various ratios to lead." (7)

Source (7) Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, (1954), p. 297.

When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible "common lead" content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples.
2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.

"Most igneous rocks also contain uranium in a form that is readily soluble in weak acids. Hurley (1950) found that as much as 90 percent of the total radioactive elements of some granites could be removed by leaching the granulated rock with weak acid." (8)

Source (8) M.R. Klepper and *D.G. Wyant, "Notes on the Geology of Uranium," in U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1046-F, 1957, p. 93.

"Countless [radioactive dating] determinations have been made by this method, but it was found that the premises on which the method rests are not valid for most uranium minerals. There is definite evidence of selective uranium leaching by acid waters, and it is now known that most radioactive minerals contained some lead when they were formed.''(9)

Source (9) Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology (1954), p. 282.

Faul's last sentence alone is enough to destroy the usefulness of uranium and thorium in providing us with accurate clocks for dating.

(3)Then there is the problem of inaccurate lead ratio comparisons. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206, 207, etc.) in the specimen are done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also.
The following statement briefly summarizes the five types of dating errors that can result when lead ratios are compared:

"Actually, the method [of comparing lead isotopes to make specimen dating more accurate) is subject to several errors.
(1) Loss of radon 222 raises the lead/lead ratio and the calculated age.
(2) A rather large error may be introduced by the uncertainty in the composition of the original lead. This error may exceed the measured value when dealing with younger uranium minerals containing even small amounts of original lead, as clearly recognized by Holmes when the method was first proposed.
(3) Presence of old radiogenic lead (formed in a prior site of the parent uranium) may cause great error.
(4) Instrumental errors in mass spectrometry may yield consistently high apparent proportions of lead 204 and lead 207.
(5) Redistribution of elements by renewed hydrothermal activity may be a serious source of error in all lead methods."(10)

[list]Source (10) Henry Faul, Nuclear Energy (1954), p. 295.

[/list]

"Uranium and lead both migrate (in shales) in geologic time, and detailed analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained with them. Similar difficulties prevail with pitchblende veins. Here again widely diverging ages can be measured on samples from the same spot. " (11)

Source (11) Henry Faul, Ages of the Rocks, Planets, and Stars (1966), p. 61.

"In view of the evidence for extensive mixing, it would seem contrary to the facts to postulate differing frozen [never-changing] lead-uranium ratios that have existed for billions of years. The requirements of the assumptions in the ore-lead method are so extreme it is unlikely that it should give a correct age." (12)

Source (12) C. Patterson, *G. Tilton, and *M. Inghram, "Age of the Earth," in Science, January 21, 1955, p. 74.

(4) Yet a fourth problem concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207.
Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth's crust could have been produced in this way, instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods!


(5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, that would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials.

"Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds laid down within a few weeks of each other differ by millions of years?" (13)

Source (13) Glenn R. Morton, "Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 229.

According to evolutionary theory, all the rocks were originally molten!

"The uranium and other radioactive minerals whose decay products are measured are usually found in igneous [volcanic) rocks. Therefore they arrived at their present locations under conditions of immense heat." (14)
[list]
Source (14) Eric A. Knappett, Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1981, p. 235.

[/list]

It is a well-known fact by nuclear researchers that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings, yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time, when in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.

POTASSIUM ARGON DATING(3)
Radioactive potassium decays into calcium and argon gas. Great hopes were initially pinned on this, for potassium occurs widely in fossil-bearing strata. But equally great disappointment resulted when, first, because of such wide dating variations the scientists could not agree on potassium half life, and then, second, when they discovered that the rare gas, argon, quickly left the mineral and escaped into other rocks and into the atmosphere.

"The two principle problems have been the uncertainties in the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the inability of minerals to retain the argon produced by this decay."(15)


Source (15) G. W. Wetherill, "Radioactivity of Potassium and Geologic Time, " in Science, September 20, 1957, p. 545.

Since it is a gas, argon 40 can easily migrate in and out of potassium rocks.

"Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for potassium-argon dating. . We have analyzed several devitrified glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit." (16)

Source (16)VF. Evemden, et. al., " KJAA Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America, "in American Journal of Science, February 1964, p 154.

Not only is argon an unstable gas, but potassium itself can easily be leached out of the rock.

"As much as 80 percent of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours." (17)

Source (17) L.A. Rancitelli and D.E. Fisher, "Potassium-Argon Ages of Iron Meteorites," in Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (1967), p. 167.

Another problem is that potassium-argon dating must be calculated by uranium-lead dating methods! This greatly adds to the problem, for we have already seen that uranium dating is, it-self unreliable! This is something like the blind leading the blind.

C14 DATING(3)
Willard F. Libby (190&1980), working at the University of Chicago, discovered the carbon 14 dating method in 1946. This was considered to be a great breakthrough in the dating of remains of plants and animals of earlier times. It is the special method used by scientists to date organic materials from earlier times in history.
Cosmic rays entering our atmosphere from outer space, strike the earth and transform regular carbon (carbon 12) to radioactive carbon (carbon 14). Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5,600 years. This method of dating is called carbon 14 dating, C-14 dating, or radiocarbon dating...

Within about 12 minutes after being struck by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, the carbon 14 combines with oxygen to become carbon dioxide that has carbon 14 in it. It then diffuses throughout the atmosphere, and is absorbed by vegetation (plants need carbon dioxide in order to make sugar by photosynthesis.) Every living thing has carbon in it. While it is alive, each plant or animal takes in carbon dioxide from the air. Animals also feed on the vegetation and absorb carbon dioxide from it. There is some carbon 14 in all of that carbon dioxide. At death, the carbon 14 continues on with its radioactive decay.

Theoretically, analysis of this carbon 14 can tell the date when the object once lived, by the percent of carbon 14 atoms still remaining in it.
Here are some of the issues around C14 dating.
If one or more of these assumptions is incorrect, then the C-14 dating will be unreliable:

(1) Atmospheric carbon: The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.
(2) Oceanic carbon: During that time, the very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.
(3) Cosmic rays: Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.
(4) Balance of rates: Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.
(5) Decay rates: The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.
(6) No contamination: Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.
(7) No seepage: No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.
(8) Amount of carbon 14 at death: The fraction of carbon 14, which the living thing possessed at death, is today known.
(9) Carbon 14 half-life: The half-life of carbon 14 has been accurately determined.
(10) Atmospheric nitrogen: Nitrogen is the precursor to C=14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.
(11) Instrumentation and analysis: The instrumentation is precise, working properly, and analytic methods are always carefully done.
(12) Uniform results: The technique always yields the same results on the same sample, or related samples that are obviously part of the same larger sample.
(13) Earth's magnetic field: Earth's magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today.

So once again there are many issues with this test.

Conflicting Results
If these tests were accurate and did provide good data, the results should be pretty consistent. Here are some example of how data that was deemed “acceptable” and some not.

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as 'acceptable' by investigators. " (18)

Source (18) J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon, " in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [the dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man." (19)

Source (19) Fredreck B. Jeaneman, "Secular Catastrophism," in Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21.

"Now there are four different ways we can compute the age of the mineral; namely, from (1) the ratio of lead 206 to uranium 238, (2) the ratio of lead 207 to uranium 235, (3) the ratio of lead 206 to lead 207, and (4) the ratio of helium to uranium.
"Ideally, all four of these ages should agree, and no estimate can be considered trustworthy unless at least two independent methods agree. But, unfortunately, complicating factors often produce discrepancies in evaluating a given sample." (20)

Source (20) *Harrison Brown, "The Age of the Solar System," in Scientific American, April 1957, p. 82.

Lunar Rocks

"Some lunar rocks and soil from the Apollo 16 mission yielded 'highly discordant' ages exceeding six billion years by lead methods. This is unacceptably high for current theories of lunar origins and disagrees with measurements made on other moon materials. .
"A rock from Apollo 16 contains 85 percent excess lead which gives uncorrected ages ranging from seven to 18 billion years by three lead methods. Removal of lead by acid treatment [1) makes possible a date of 3.8 billion years, which is considered acceptable. .
"Some moon rocks are considered to have lost up to 48 percent of their argon, and their K/Ar [potassium-argon] ages are judged to be too low. On the other hand, many lunar rocks contain such large quantities of what is considered to be excess argon that dating by K/Ar is not even reported [for their ages would be too recent] . .
"Certain rocks from Apollo 12, dated by Sr/Rb [rubidium-strontium] and several lead methods [uranium, thorium], yielded ages ranging from 2.3 to 4.9 billion years. The effort to explain the results involves hypothetical second and third events which reset some of the radiometric clocks at different times in the past . .
"Lunar soil collected by Apollo 11 gave discordant ages by different methods: Pbz7/Pb206, 4.67 billion; Pb2Oe/Uz=, 5.41 billion; Pb2O7/U2=, 5.41 billion; Pb27/U23s, 4.89 billion; and Pb2w/Th232, 8.2 billion years. Rocks from the same location yielded K/Ar ages of around 2.3 billion years."(21)


Source (21) R.E. Kofahl and K.L Segraves, Creation Explanation (1975), p. 200, 201.

"Other methods, e.g., uranium-lead and thorium-lead ages, have resulted in contradictory evidence. A classic example is that the dust samples on the moon seem to be older than the rocks underneath. (22)


Source (22) "Erech Yon Fange, "Time Upside Down, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.

"The most reasonable age [from among the many conflicting "dates" offered] can be selected only after careful consideration of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations. " (23)

Source (23) *LR. Stieff, *T.W Stern and *R.N. Eichler, "Algebraic and Graphic Methods for Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages," in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, No. 414-E (1963).

Does that last quote really make sense? Only use the data that correlate to the other data we have. But we have seen that the other data, strata ages and fossil ages are based off each other and the radiometric ages are supposed to agree with that.

So radiometric dating is full of assumptions we cannot prove and the data based on those assumptions contradict each other. Plus, the calculated ages that do not agree with the previously determines ages of the rock layers is discarded.

How can this method be used to “prove” the age of anything?


Fossils – Are they a window into evolution?

Fossils are the remains or traces of animals and plants buried and preserved in sedimentary rock or organic matter. Fossils may be skeletons, teeth, simple bones, even footprints. Sedimentary rock is fossiliferous, or fossil-bearing rock. It is made up of layers called strata. (24)

Source (24) http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/fossils.html

In this section we will look at several things. What is a polystrata fossil? Giant fossil graveyards. How long does it take to make coal and what are those conditions? What sort of natural occurrence could produce all of the fossils?

Polystrata / Quickly Buried / Strange Fossils
Here are some examples of fossils that point towards rapid burial and potential issues with dating ages of different types of animals.

Dog eat Dino

The fossilized remains of a small dinosaur (psittacosaur) have been found in the belly of a dog-like mammal named Repenomamus robustus. Researchers have also found a second fossil that they have named Repenomamus giganticus. This second fossil has been described as “breathtaking” and “about the size of a modern dog. (25)


Source (25) Verrengia, J., “Mammal ate dinosaur, to scientists’ surprise,” Cincinnati Enquirer, A5, January 13, 2005.

Fossilized Birth

Another remarkable specimen, a mother ichthyosaur that appears to have died while giving birth, definitely indicates live birth of the young. (26)

Source (26) http://www.northern.edu/natsource/earth/Marine1.htm

Fish Eats Fish
Here are several pictures of fish eating fish fossils. Now what are the odds that a fish died while eating another fish sank to the ocean floor and the smaller fish died as well. Only for both of them to be fossilized by being buried over a long period of time?



Vertical Whale

Workers at the Dicalite division of Grefco, Inc. have found the fossil skeleton of a baleen whale some 10 to 12 million years old in the company’s diatomaceous earth quarries in Lompoc, California. They’ve found fossils there before; in fact, the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected anywhere. It was spotted by operator James Darrah and Dr. Barnes is directing the excavation. The whale is standing on end in the quarry and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet. The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long.
However, the fact that the whale is standing on end as well as the fact that it is buried in diatomaceous earth would strongly suggest that it was buried under very unusual and rapid catastrophic conditions. (27)


Source (27) Chemical and Engineering News October 11, 1976

Fossil Graveyards
Another issue that evolutionist have is explaining the large number of fossils buried together. How did these just happen slowly over millions of years?

In New Mexico

“As the layer was exposed (the workers cut a large scallop into the hillside) it revealed a most remarkable dinosaurian graveyard in which there were literally scores of skeletons one on top of another and interlaced with one another. It would appear that some local catastrophe had overtaken these dinosaurs, so that they all died together and were buried together. (28)

In Wyoming

“At this spot the fossil hunters found a hillside literally covered with large fragments of dinosaur bones. In short, it was a veritable mine of dinosaur bones… The concentration of the fossils was remarkable; they were piled in like logs in a jam (28)

In Belgium

“Thus it could be seen that th efossil boneyard was evidentaly one of gigantic proportions, especially notable becausue of its verticle extension throught more than a hundred feet of rock.” (28)


Source (28) Edwin Colbert, Men and Dinousars (New York, E.P. Dutton and Co., 1968)

Elsewhere

Ongoing excavations in the Gobi Desert tell of one such sight that has become an embarrassment to evolutionists. Twenty-five therapod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals. There is no evidence of the several million year evolutionary gap or of the iridium boundary that is thought to delineate when the dinosaurs became extinct. (29)


Source (29) http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/grave/grave.htm

In the United States one finds a profusion of skeletons in a hillside dinosaur graveyard in New Mexico, in the famous Bone Cabin Quarry of Wyoming, and at other sites. In Alberta, Canada there is a huge graveyard that stretches for many miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones. In Agate Springs, Nebraska a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals was found buried in alluvial deposits. The remains of hundreds of rhinos, three-toed horses, camels, giant wild boars, birds, plants, trees, sea shells and fish are mixed and intermingled in great confusion. In Tanzania, Belgium and Mongolia similar massive catastrophes captured vast populations and trapped them in a fossil graveyard of sediments and debris.(30)


Source (30) Joe Taylor, FOSSIL FACTS & FANTASIES (Mt. Blanco Publications, 1999)

One of the most fascinating fossil graveyard of all is located in the southern United States. The Ashley Beds is an enormous phosphate graveyard that contains mixed remains of man with land and sea animals, notably dinosaurs, pleisosaurs, whales, sharks, rhinos, horses, mastodons, mammoths, porpoises, elephants, deer, pigs, dogs, and sheep.
"Remains of the hog, the horse and other animals of recent date, together with human bones mingled with the bones of the mastodon and extinct gigantic lizards."(31)


Source (31) Willis, "Fossils and Phosphate Specimens," 1881.

If fossils were to take millions of years and happen after an animal died, how could vast large qualities of fossil beds for all over the earth?

Coal (32)
Coal Formation
If coal has formed from the gradual build-up and burial of organic matter in a swamp, we would expect to find some gradation in rank from the top of a coal deposit to the bottom. Theoretically, material in the lower sections has had more time to change, and has been under greater heat and pressure, than the material at the top.
The making of coal, it appears, is a. threshold process. That is, all the right conditions have to be in place before organic matter is turned into coal. Limited variations do exist, but they are within the system of coal ranks. Coal deposits appear in geological strata already formed, and do not show evidence of the presumed evolutionary pathway leading from a peat swamp. Certainly, a transformation from plant material to coal has occurred, but not in the way suggested by the uniformitarian swamp model.

Quantity of Coal Deposits

There is a problem with the proportions of coal deposits found on the Earth today. Theoretically, it takes 10 feet of plant matter to form one foot of peat, and 12 feet of peat to form one foot of coal. (33)

Source (33) Morton, Glenn R. (1984), .The Carbon Problem,. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 20:212-219.

Williamson notes that the lower parts of modern peat deposits show considerable compaction, and that perhaps only five feet of peat are needed to form one foot of coal. Based on these figures, a coal seam 10-feet-thick would require 500-1,200 feet of plant matter, and a 200-feet-thick seam would require 10,000-24,000 feet of plant matter.

Evidence of Rapid Formation of Coal in Nature

There are several indications that the process of making coal did not take millions of years. First, vertical tree trunks within coal deposits suggest that they must have been buried fairly quickly; otherwise, the exposed portion of the trunk would rot before preservation could take place

Second, Robert Gentry.s work on coalified wood from uranium-rich rocks of the Colorado Plateau and the Chattanooga Shale may show that the coal formed rapidly, and in relatively recent times. These rocks contain radiohalos, microscopic, spherical sites of alteration that are thought to be caused by the decay of radioactive particles deposited by water flowing through the wood before it was transformed into coal. One unusual group of halos created by the breakdown of uranium appears too young for the age assigned by uniformitarian geology. Analyses of the halos suggest that they are several thousand years old, not several million years old (34)


Source (34) Gentry, Robert V., et al. (1976),. Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification,. Science, 194:315-318.

Thus, Gentry has provided evidence which seems to show that this wood, and the sediments in which it lies, were:

(a) Buried quickly and in relatively recent times; and
(b) Transformed into coal and rock quite rapidly

.

Also, because these radiohalos are found in coalified wood from several different locations, and appear to have formed at the same time, then a single, widespread, catastrophic event seems to be responsible.

Rapid Formation of Coal in the Laboratory

Various laboratory experiments have tried to generate coal in an artificial environment. For example, researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory conducted several experiments heating a selection of organic products at different temperatures and in a variety of conditions. By far the most successful tests subjected lignin to a heat of 150°C in the presence of clay over a period ranging from two to eight months in the absence of oxygen. After two months, the products had a chemical composition resembling lignite, and after eight months, the products had a chemical composition resembling bituminous coals. (35)


Source (35) Hayatsu, Ryoichi, et al. (1984), .Artificial Coalification Study: Preparation and Characterization of Synthetic Macerals,. Advances in Geochemistry, 6:463-471.

Source (32) http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/goco.pdf

So we see that millions of years are not required to produce coal. Plus the amount of material needed to form such thick layers of coal tends to show the need for massive large scale deposits. That is not consistent with slow layers deposits of evolution.

Comparison-Evolution vs. Creation
Now we will look back on all points and see how they relate to both evolution and creation.

Evolution
-Rock layers were originally dated based on the theory of evolution-We have already touched on why this is not good science. There was no was to actually tell what the age of anything was without the assumption of evolution to be correct.

-Radiometric Dating has issues- With all of the assumptions and no way to prove them, radiometric dating in any form cannot be reasonable used to determine any age. Plus the ages that are dated conflict with each other. How can any of this be assumed accurate?

-Do fossils require rapid burial-To form a fossil, the organism must quickly be isolated from a destructive environment. Rapid burial of some sort is required to achieve this. There are many more examples than the ones shown above that demonstrate slow death and burial did not take place.


SO…..
-Rock layer Age – How do we really know how old anything is.

-Radiometric Dating- Not reliable. Contradicts other tests

-Fossils- Require rapid burial and there are examples that show mixtures of animals, great and small, died together from a catastrophic event.


Creation
-Rock Layer age- The age of the rocks was based on evolution. From a Biblical standpoint young rock do not pose a concern. Since there is no way to prove old or young it does not effect creation. Only evolution because old is required.

-Radiometric Dating- Same as above.

-Fossils- Evidence shows that a rapid burial is required. A global flood like from the Bible could have accomplished this.


SO…..
-Rock layer Age – Old is required for evolution but not creation

-Radiometric Dating- Same as above

-Fossils- Shows evidence that long periods of time are not needed to make fossils and that catastrophic event would be required to make some of the fossil deposits we see.

[WidowMakers]

Well that is a lot of stuff to read. :D

I know I did not cover everything. First because I have been working on this for 3 weeks and second, people probably will not read the entire thing anyway.

And there will be people who say that I still have not shown any evidence for creation. Well you can look at it two ways:

1) Nothing in the real world contradicts creation. If a creator made everything, biology, geology physics would all still function as they are today. The only implication is that there would be a creator.

2) By showing all of the areas where evolution either has no answer or it is based on assumptions that cannot be made creation has a good case because evolution does not. If DNA, information, mutations, geological age, etc can be shown not to agree with evolution but agree with creation, then creation has a good scientific case for being creditable.

SO before anyone comes back to say:

-What about ape to man fossils
-the iridium layer
-speculation of evolving bacteria
-or any other thing

Please look at several things.
-Is this issue a very specific issue. Could it be that by looking at such a small area, theories assumptions could be made that "prove" evolution.
- If that is the case, how does this event or theory affect the other requirements for evolution. (DNA, Thermodynamics, mutation etc)


Basically if you are going to show proof for evolution you need to explain every issue listed in the previous posts with a scientific explanation.

[Backglass]

What was the question?

[Neoteny]

Wow, give me a little while. I'll have to get to it tomorrow...

[got tonkaed]

admittedly i am not a great student of how the world came to be....as its one of the existential questions that i dont really seem to need an answer to at the present moment.....

however, i think part of this larger case you are seeming to point out at least from the evolution side, is that science really cant provide a suitable alternative. Now i havent done your impressive amount of data collection, and do not wish to take up the job....but you are using a large number of sources that are over a quarter of a century old. Even in the last 25 years we have seen societal shifts in the mindset of thinkers and i would gather that should some of your sources have been a little more recent, there is a possibility that many of the arguments made about science would not have been presented in such a way.


There also has seemed to be somewhat of a trend in your arguments to attempt to make creationism eventually seem like the simplier solution to which you may attempt to appeal to some type of occums razor solution. I think if you are trying to look at this debate from different sides it should be worth mentioning that the bible and the worldview behind it, has been around for quite some time....whereas some of the scientific theories your mentioning are relatively new by comparison, one would necessarily expect it would take quite a bit of time for any of those ideas to be "fully understood".

[Iliad]

WITHOUT USING YOUR BIBLE:
is there any actual evidence that you can point
to that shows the earth was created?

OK here we go. I will say this again.

There is no evidence either way to prove the earth was created or just happened by chance.

There are people out there who will say we have evidence the earth is young. There are people out there who say we have evidence the earth is old. The problem with BOTH side of this issue is that we can’t prove either.

What I can do is show how creation has a good scientific case. Meaning creation does not contradict things we see in nature and the natural processes. And at the same time there are many things that evolution claims that have never been seen in nature or are accepted as fact but never proven or is not actually science. Many of these claims have been accepted as fact regardless of the holes, issues and improbability of them individually and together in the entire evolutionary system.

Here is the big question.
Is there a creator that made everything or did everything happen naturally by chance?

Now I know one of the first things people will say (or have said in the past) is that they don't believe in a creator because it can't be proven and that they only believe in what science call tell them.

Well for those people I have some questions:

1) Can you really prove there is a creator?
If a creator existed before our universe and if that creator made our universe, the creator then exists outside our universe. And if the creator exists outside our universe, why does anyone think that we as humans should or could be able to "detect" or prove the existence.

2) Is believing only what science can prove a good idea?
By only believing in what science can prove, a person is saying that there is nothing beyond the scope of science. That eventually with enough time, all information about the universe is attainable to mankind. And if something is not provable then it is not real.

There are several issues with this ideology.

1) This assumes that everything is eventually understandable from a scientific perspective. By saying I will only believe in what science can tell me, a person is saying that nothing exists outside the realm of scientific observation. But no one can prove that there is nothing outside the realm of science so they can't really say that those things do not exist.

2) This assumes that man can eventually understand all that is understandable. Is this something that can be proven? When would man be able to say that everything is understood?

So based on these two points, there is a possibility that things exist that are beyond our comprehension, things beyond our physical realm and understanding.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIT ONE MINUTE!
You said that this topic was about comparing facts and actual evidence. We were going to look at each area and see how evolution and creation stack up to each other.

How can you then say there are things beyond our comprehension? Do you expect us to just say "OK, I believe in a creator now. Since I can't prove it or understand it, I might as well believe it."

Well that is not what I am saying at all. I am simple stating that just because we cannot prove there is a creator, does not mean that the physical world around us does not point back to a creator. Just as we cannot prove evolution, if the facts point back to the past and support that theory, a good case can be made for it.

I'll start.
You talked about believing in only what science can tell me. The point wher you went wrong is that you assumed that science doesn't change. That is the difference between science and religion. 2000 years ago science and religion had the same views, yet religion doesn't change and science does. I believe in science because it does make more sense because it has been under scrutiny and it changes. Science could be wrong. Science is all about forming hypothesis and trying to find the truth. In about 2000 years there will probably be many conflicting theories with the theories of todays. And that is why I take the scientific point of view.

I will read the entire thing later.

[Guiscard]

An absolutely fitting and massive

TL:DR

[Stopper]

I had to look up "TL:DR", and according to the Urban Dictionary, it means:

Literally, "Too long; didn't read"

Said whenever a nerd makes a post that is too long to bother reading.

Yeah. That's you, that is, WidowMakers. You're a nerd.

[heavycola]

[Backglass]

A famous author once said (paraphrasing):

"If I'd had more time, I would have written something shorter".

[Stopper]

I think we can all agree that WidowMaker's posts suffer from the problem of TL:DR.

To that end, I've decided to have a quick read through and make a revised version, by stripping out all the bits that have been discussed, rehashed, and otherwise done to death elsewhere (either here on CC or anywhere else) and left only the truly original bits. This way he should be able to get the proper response he deserves.

Here is the revised version:

[size=0].[/size]