The second questioner obviously had an agenda. He was fighting for a lost cause because he was annoyed that he was wrong. He probably works at the discovery institute. 😊
As a devout Christian I would not want I.D. taught in my child's school as a SCIENCE. As a philosophy I think it's very interesting and just plain fun and intellectually stimulating. My problem with some of these I.D. deniers and scientists in general is they have such closed minds.
I used to call myself an atheist and thought Darwin was a genius. Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero. . Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches, and turtles et al? Zero again. . Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genomes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations. . Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad." . Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column. . The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor life forms, like trilobites. are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland. In fact, 90% of the fossils on land are marine. Golly, how did that seawater get everywhere all over the planet? Hmmm.... . Take a look. See the ocean floor dwelling, now extinct, so called "Cambrian", trilobites found on mountain tops all over the world. (They are supposed to be at the bottom of the GC.) www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites%20On%20Mountains&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=trilobites%20on%20mountains&sc=0-23&sk=&cvid=9008D75298A54105AD924CA3AACAE385 Notice the exquisitely preserved details on many. This is also seen with innumerable sea shells, mollusks, etc. . Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved, intact and conjoined, vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils in the countless billions to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains. Not uncommonly the fossils are in their original shape with perfect details as you see in the link. "Plate tectonics" are purely speculaitons, piled on theories, heaped on hypotheses. They can't explain the lack of erosion which should have caused those fossils to be nothing but dust and rubble after their so called millions of years trek. . (And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.) . The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). Again, the fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 90% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. Even the one by the Aborigines of Australia is highly similar to what the Bible reports. . So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minuscle changes that leave them basically what they were before. . You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species in a genus moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom to become a new family. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from an order, class, phylum or Kingdom.) . Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over - in the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past. . We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any lifeform of Family A to turn into a lifeform of Family B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, dolphins stay dolphins, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, tulips stay tulips, chimps stay chimps, fruit flies stay fruit lies, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change. . This fits in with what the Bible says about creation having been halted. What also fits is that no new strands of DNA are ever created. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy, on and on. DNA can be somewhat altered by mutations and natural selection, selective breeding and even genetic engineering, but is never seen to be created from "scratch." . What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense. . The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many. . Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidence-free, data-free, descendants. We'll call that science." . This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years. . "Missing links" (2 to 5 million Darwin years' worth of them between you and Lucy or some other such "transition" du jour) is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious! . Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them used in every defense in evolutionary literature. . Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind. . Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory. . You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him, too If you think He made you through evolution, you have a lot to learn about Him - and science, real science. . Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
Nick Nack Ya know what would really be great? If you could present actual DATA to support your faith in evolutionism. There is a fast and easy way for you to convince me that evolution happens. You only have to use 1 or 2 sentences to do that. Just provide the information I request below. . First, we are told that the two forces behind evolution are natural selection and "beneficial" mutations. So fine. Name a life form. Then name an act of natural selection, or a mutation, that you can demonstrate is causing the life form to "evolve" as the result of either of those. . Now remember that the poster kids for evolution are things like antibiotic resistant and nylon eating bacteria, snowflake yeast, some geckos, spotted salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, sickle cell anemia victims and lactose intolerant people. The problem is - and this is always true in evolutionary claims - the so called proof proves the exact opposite of what is claimed. . The bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, fruit flies, peppered moths, and people - and all their descendants - are staying nothing but bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, and homo sapiens. Or, if that is not true, what are they "evolving" into that is not in those categories? Cite your data. . No one ever gives the data asked for, however. They may change the subject, or make excuses. They may try to pass the buck and tell me "Your answers are out there on the net. Somewhere." At the same time they don't show that they, themsleves, have done any research at all on the topic. They may put down a glut of words, but none of those words ever names the life form, or the act of natural selection or beneficial mutation, that I asked for. . Now, there are countless life forms out there. The vast bulk of them are microscopic ones that multiply at rocket rates. Further, we are told that evolution is going on all the time. Surely, if evolution is true, you ought to be able to find just one life form, as requested, and offer your evidence that natural selection or a mutation is causing it to evolve? . Real science requires real evidence. When we are told as gawd's truth fact that such and such is true and there is zero observable data to support that idea, and when, in fact, we are told that such and such is true when it actually contradicts the data, what do we have? Pseudoscience. . But, hey, if you like thinking you have a bunch of hairy knuckle draggers hanging from your family tree, and don't want to believe you are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and loved by your Creator, who am I to burst your bubble?
@Nick Nack As predicted, you dodged the questions and changed the subject. Typical YT evolution defender approach. Referring to me as childish is also a change of subject and also totally typical in replacing data with personal insults. I have seen consistently, over and over, that such posters never do say a single thing based on observable scientific data. They are purely faith and insult based. Their irrelevant verbal abuse escalates with further exchanges however. Therefore, after these two posts, you will go on ignore. Why waste your precious time and mine in fruitless exchanges? But for any (may it be you some day) who have eyes to see, I will leave some information. Then, bye!! Life forms have imperfections because they are now in a fallen world. That's sin the Bible, which of course, you currently do not believe. The reason for belief in my "God", the Creator of the Bible, is for one thing due to the DATA. Unlike evolution, which you cannot defend with data because the full, spin free, data opposes it every time, the Bible holds up to the data. Part 1 The evidences for the Bible are too numerous to mention and include areas such as archaeology, history, fulfilled prophecies and, yes, science. Let's start with DNA. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on. Yes, it can be altered to a limited extent, but no new strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted. And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, where would they get it from? Cite your data, if any. Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to family, to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past. Hundreds of thousands of species of beetles stay beetles, thousands and thousands of species of trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever, stay trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. But if you can give an example to the contrary, by all means do so. The Bible talks about a Great Flood. There are countless billions of fossils all over the planet. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 95% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Hmmmm.... There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world. If you think there was a Geologic Column, link close up photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them. If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are used to create theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative. But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains." The real scientific data, and common sense, tell us those fossils would be nothing but dust in rubble in all that time. And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues, including flesh with liquid blood in it, in dinosaur bones all the time. There always is some unverifiable, never supported by actual data, "reason" given for why such things lasted, of course. The actual data from forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored. Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football. The Bible says people lived for hundreds of years in Old Testament times. We cannot prove that. But we can prove that in the ancient past dinos did! Again, they started out small, but got to be gigantic. Now lizards keep growing as long as they live. Obviously there was a different eco system back then that allowed the dinos, unlike modern day lizards, to keep on growing for hundreds of years. (And giant-ism, of course, was no way confined to just dinos. There used to be rhinos as big as houses, for example.) Would not that more favorable, pre Flood, eco system have allowed for longer lives in humans, too? And btw, I have sometimes had evolution believers to demand that they be shown bunny bones with dino bones. This vid goes over the Ashley Phosphate fossil beds which show a vast, 18 inch deep, jumble of fossils including those from dinos, people, rabbits, horses, rhinos, whales and on and on. czcams.com/video/4rAdxc1JKHA/video.html Extinction also demonstrates the Biblical truth that creation has stopped. If evolution were true the fossil record would show more different kinds of animals in the present than in the past. Instead we see the opposite, that there are far less different kinds of animals seen today than in the past. Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex. Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen? Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., but once again there is zero data to support any such claim. Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal. If the Creator went to all that "trouble" to create that little, high tech, nano machine called a bacterial flagellum, how much more does He care about you, in whom He placed it?
Part 2 A new book called Physicians' Untold Stories lists many doctors' reports about divine intervention they have seen in their practice. In one case a woman who had not walked for years, and who was on her death bed from multiple sclerosis. was prayed over. Suddenly the Almighty told her to "Get up and walk." That she did, with the sudden appearance of new muscles in her legs. She is now leading a completely normal, healthy, life. And there is much, much more... Anyone: When you see the well documented miracles below, if you want to say "Anecdotes", sorry, I can't take you seriously. I'm quite sure that when you get your own medical or doctor reports that you say no such thing. If you can't tell the difference between anecdotes and medical reports, and scientific research, perhaps you should spend some time curled up with a dictionary. Also, if you want to quote some site that tries to trash the Shroud of Turin, I leave you with a rhetorical Q. Should I listen to people who were never anywhere near the Shroud , or to the team of scientists who examined it and put their findings in peer reviewed science journals, and to the scientist who invented carbon 14 dating who is seen in the vid? (There he can be seen saying that the "medieval age" carbon 14 datings of the Shroud are invalid due to contamination.) That's not a tough decision. Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and raised the dead and healed the sick. He multiplied food out of nothing. He said we could do even greater things than He did. The Bible also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories? See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church. czcams.com/video/sPHycsIdB1Y/video.html . See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. czcams.com/video/Xyko-56NCSw/video.html The DNA in every cell in her body was changed. See CBN's short vid with Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him. czcams.com/video/c3Zjt8r-hNA/video.html . Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead. czcams.com/video/s-7ZkleLu1w/video.html Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story. Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth. czcams.com/video/CfdG5czaUX0/video.html The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles. On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured. Bruce Van Natta was in a horrific accident where he lost about 80% of his small intestine. Someone he didn't even know was told to get on a plane and lay hands on him and pray for him. His small intestines grew back competely and you can see his doctors testifying to that. czcams.com/video/fYwFqeHBA28/video.html Here we see many witnesses reporting donated food being miraculously multiplied for people who lived in a dump in Juarez. czcams.com/video/gwsuYYIJ3Rg/video.html And btw do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who can make body parts and food out of nothing, Someone Who created time, space, matter, and energy - needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you. Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a blood stained linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. czcams.com/video/XTtDhvk_aw4/video.html The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud. In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into stewardship of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals. The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology. About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck." Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out. You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out." It's not about religion. It's about Him. And you.
You have to feel very sorry for Miller, faced with such overwhelming and compelling evidence of God's nonexistence, yet clinging to a hope of something supernatural out there.
+ilikethisnamebetter Actually there is evidence overflowing of a Creator. This is seen from cosmology (See Thomas Kindell's vid Thermodynamic Evidence For Creation for ex.) to bacteriology.In the area of bacteriology I will give you just one example which you will not be able to explain. Now biochemist Michael Behe has already given you his example, which you may have heard about, of irreducible complexity in the bacterial flagellum, but I will give one I prefer. The b.f. "debunks" are all strawmen and based on fantasies, not data, about what happened in the conveniently unverifiable past - i.e. using evolution's standard use of the presuming omniscience logical fallacy. My example makes those illogical and unscientific ploys way less likely.Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its whip and motor. Without the whip and motor the b.f. cannot do its job. Both the whip and motor are useless unless both of them are fully formed and fully functional. Now how and why would "evolution" sloooowly build up nubs and stubs of those two parts, while totally useless, and hold them in evolutionary limbo until they were complete?Again, the evidence for a Creator, through intelligent design and in many other ways, is overflowing. The Bible says life was created all at once, fully formed. Once you get past the evo. spin doctoring, that's what we always see in real life and in the fossil recordOn the other hand the evidence for evolution is always based on numerous logical fallacies, theories presented as evidence, faith in the unseen (like countless billions of "missing" links) presented as scientific fact, and sometimes outright lies both verbal and visual.Don't miss out on your Heavenly Father. He loves you and wants you to know and love Him, too. Give Him a call. He's never too busy for you. If you want to know if He exists, then incerely from the heart, ask HIM.
+Lorica Lass If you actually read the Dover court case transcript, you would discover Miller *destroyed* Behe's bacterial flagellum argument. Take your bible thumping nonsense back to church. lol
Lorica Lass Thomas Kindell??? The thermodynamics video?? LOL! I've debunked that whole hour-long video! Haha.. I don't have it on video, but I have it in writing.
FusedChromosomes So I'm just to accept on faith that you have debunked someone or something? Notice you present no scientific data about anything. Like, how do we tell 2 to 5 million Darwin years of "missing' links between you and Lucy aren't just non existent links? Like how come evolutionists keep pushing the idea that life can come from inorganic matter - all over the net and YT and with the primal pond theory - when everything shows life only comes from life and life of the same kind. Like....well, what does it matter? You aren't ever going to try to refute anything said with actual scientific observable data. Your mind was...created. for so much more.
-Below are some Qs for you to answer which require only logic and science. There is no reference to Deity or the Bible since evolution stands or falls based on science and logic alone. When you see that you cannot answer the Qs - and no evo devotees ever answer them, only change the subject and dodge, evade, ignore them - be honest with yourself and notice that your...faith....in evolution is not really founded on understanding of the scientific issues. Before looking at the Qs you might want to Google Quotes Showing The Credulity of Evolutionists to see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other scientists, including evolutionists (!) admitting there is no...evidence... for evolution! If they don't buy it, why should you? Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that. After all, we have been examining bacteria since 1670, pretty much 24/7 around the globe, and they multiply at rocket rates. I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it. Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc. Bacteria can be fossilized. Examples have been found in so called "earliest, Cambrian" layers of the earth, and they are all just bacteria, w/no evidence they are turning into anything else at all. We are told that nylon eating bacteria are evidence for evolution. Yeal, they made a change. But change is not evolution. Dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc. have been changed for thousands of years. They give evidence against evolution because all that change has led to are....dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc. Evolutionary literature tells us that nylon eating bacteria are a poster child for evolution because they learned to eat nylon from factory run off into their ponds. Nylon eating bacteria have not so much as changed their species even. They go right back to normal eating patterns in normal ponds. So explain how they are turning into uber bacteria climbing up Darwin's Tree to turn into you? Explain that now, don't dodge it. Give any evidence whatsoever that any bacteria whatsoever ever stopped being a bacteria. Theories which have no evidence to back them up, when presented as scientific fact, make only for pseudo science. Kindly don't say, "Change is evolution." It is ultra easy to prove that is totally untrue. That's one of evolution's big myths. All those bacteria, fish, birds, bugs, plants, people, etc. etc. keep changing and changing. And they all stay bacteria, birds, bugs, plants, people etc. etc. So what change really shows is that it does NOT lead to evolution! Back to Dawkins, he teaches that time, space, matter and energy and you,. everything, comes from....nothing. Rotfl! What kind of "science" is that? Doesn't science, doesn't common sense, show that nothing comes from nothing? In fact, they show us that an effect can never be greater than its cause. Qs, # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evoltuion. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless varieties, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds. Cite observed data that demonstrates an occurence of unique genetic information resulting through natural selection - not just the reshuffling of, or elimination of, genetic information that is already available in the life form. Name the life form and verify its before and after states. In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention. To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc. (Funny how, with evolution supposedly being the norm, there is not one example of any such changes with the countless billions of reptiles found on the planet, and ditto the countless fish that are not seen turning into reptiles but into anything but fish. Find me a toe on a single fish, a feather on a single reptile, for ex.. living or fossil. And no those supposed "protofeathers" found on some ancient reptile fossils have been described by some....evolutionists....as being only collagenous fibers.) Tell me where science has ever observed any such things happening with DNA. It is all very well to say "Well, it all happened so long ago...." What evidence is there in that? How do you tell a missing link from a nonexistent link? Qs, # 3 We are told that mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. Virtually all of them are harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot? Fish don't have DNA for feet. To change a fin into a foot you need new. foot, DNA. Explain how mutations could create DNA. Give evidence for where that has ever been seen to happen. In fact, explain how DNA came about period by any mechanism. Please don't tell me that the sickle cell anemia nmutation is leading to evolution, as some evolutionists have claimed. No, it just replaces one horrible disease for another through bent blood cells. How is that going to make the hapless victims more likely to produce healthy, viable, offspring? How do bent blood cells have the capacity to turn the victims some day into uber people, climbing up Darwin's Tree? Do your research in peer reviewed evolutionary literature and when you do check for theorietcal dodge words like "Probably....must have...likely....we can infer...it appears that...similar homology [Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy which undergirds all of evolutionary theory]....millions of years ago [stated as Gawd's truth scientific fact though such happenings in those periods of "time" are untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable....ev-i-dence-less.]...etc." I promise you, you will always find those kinds of "fuzz factor" words, usually in the first paragraph. And I promise you that speculations piled on logical fallacies piled on presumptions mixed in with sophistry will almost always be counted as "evidence" in the peer reviews. Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy, Australopithecus, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale? How do you know a "transition", like Tiktaalilk and all the others, isn't just what it looks like - what the only evidence shows - a dead end, extinct, life form? And btw look at modern day lobe finned fish that are virtually the same as Tik. Research the history of how they told you another lobefinned fish, Coelacanath, WAS a transition. They used their Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause , etc. and Presuming Omniscience magic crystal ball that sees into the past to tell people that. Tons of peer reviews said the presumed to be extinct Coelacanth was turning into a reptile. Then they found some live ones. You can see the pretty blue...fish period...swimming on CZcams. There are countless billions of fossils out there but that's an example of the best they can do to prove there are transitional forms. Please don't say "walking catfish". They are 100% fish with 100% fins used in a novel way, similar to "flying fish" which no way are turning into birds. Fish and dolphins, etc. have astronomically more "characteristics of" and "similar homology" features than amabulocetus and a whale. Ditto Tiktaalik and a tetrapod. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales, both mammals, have sonar. Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Cockatoos and people dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fall-a-cy. The only matching "characteristic of" ambulocetus is a minor similarity in the inner ear to that of a whale. Based on that we're supposed to believe ambulocetus turned into a great whale? Again Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fallacy,not scientific evidence. To use it as evidence is illogical, therefore antiscience. Oh, and before you say "Geologic Column" that is a mythical construct developed by a 19th century lawyer named Charles Lyell. He never saw one and no one else has either. Sites like Talk Spin, aka Talk Origins, claim they found part of one on this entire planet. What does the fossil record really show? Fossils are jumbled. There are so called Cambrian and PreCambrian seashells, mollusks, etc. littering the tops of most mountains. Dino bones from the so called lower level Jurassic area stick out of moumntain ranges in the northwestern states. Where I grew up, in a midwestern state, you can find extinct, ocean floor trylobytes in the hills. If you want more documentation I can give you quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting that the dating of the rocks is "very subjective" and that people try to match their dates to presumed Darwinian expectations. And btw I've seen a clip of Miller on the Colbert show where he stated that as an RC he believes that "Jesus Christ is the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen." This was in between times when he was stumping against intelligent design. Ya gotta wonder who his Jesus Christ is. Apparently he is dumb and design-free. But hey, if a dumb, design-free deity "created all that is, seen and unseen", that's pretty big miracle, huh? Come out of the matrix. Find out who you really are.
+Lorica Lass Amazing questions and very well thought out. I am replying so that I can stay in touch with any answers or discussions. Thanks for taking the time to write these.
pashmpoosh Thanks so much for a kind, supportive comment. I had posted those Qs, and other comments in many places, particularly under Ken Miler's vids. They usually get no response. However, here you can find recent examples of responses seen in my drop down box: Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome posted by Kanaal Van Weirdo3467, Ken Miller The Collapse of Intelligent Design posted by bdwilson 1000 (started in my reply to a post in a string started by Bjorne Soegaard), Creationism Hear The Scientists Respond. In the last example my responses got out of order when I tried to fix a YT glitch so it may seem at first that I am not responding to the one who is debating with me. On that same, last, page there are also exchanges under a post started by Doc Reasonable. The subject of the Sabbath came up. Frankly, you may find my responses, there, to be objectionable, maybe even offensive. I did not want to offend anyone, including you. I know most people have not researched this topic from an historical or Biblical point of view the way I have. I don't think people who keep a Sunday "Sabbath" are going to hell or anything. I just think they are not fully informed . I received so many blessings from mainstream Christianity, and still do, though I am now what is called Messianic, or Torah observant. Blessings to you and yours my friend. :-)
***** Thanks again for the reply, I will look up your discussions. Oh I totally agree with you about the Sabbath. Sadly a lot of Christians don't dig enough to realize the foundation of modern Christianity today is the council of Nicaea in which the marriage of church and state really happened in 325 AD. If you read the story as I am sure you might have you will see they exiled anyone who disagreed. That is NOT the spirit of God! Ironically if you look at the bible itself in act 2 and 4 it says that "all the believers were together and shared all things in common". That seems to be the pattern the apostles wanted to establish following Jesus (Yahshua) rising from the dead. I think that at the end of the first century the church was really falling apart as evident even by the book of James talking about the corruption inside the churches. What we see now in the form of a very divided Christianity (that keeps compromising in order to get converts) is sadly just a shell of the radical lifestyle of love and sharing Jesus came to establish.
pashmpoosh What an interesting post. Thank you for it. Actually I don't remember hearing what you report there about the Council of Nicea and will definitely have to check that out. Yes, I agree with all you had to say. We have come a long way from where we need to be. Like for ex.....I am just now researching documented cases of medical healings as the result of prayer to our Messiah. The best so far are a colon that regrew 3 feet after surgery, Ronald Coyne who could see out of an empty eye socket for years, Dean Braxton who was clinically dead for 1 3/4 hours and is now alive and normal, and a man raised to life after 40 minutes dead by cardiologist Dr. Cranshaw, also alive and normal. All the above cases are verified by doctors. You can see them saying so on YT. Well, that is way off track, but what I'm saying is we can get back on track, can't we? Like, if those people could see miracles as in the first century, so can you and I and many others. I suspect there will a move of miracles in these last days and that some people, at least, will start being like first century believers.
+pashmpoosh hmmm, I"m sure the bible says 'all the believers were together' but that makes me wonder what the original language was before it was subjected to countless translations and interpretations, but mostly it makes me ask about why your god hid himself from the parts of the world where there were already literate societies. If the creator of all that is--foolish thinking if you ask me--wanted 'his people' to know about 'him' and was also omniscent and all powerful then why would he be so regionally selective about his revelation? surely god would have known the great impossibility of middle eastern man finding his way to Asia and the Asian sub-continent. I personally am proud to know that I am from a common ancestor that once gave a shit about this earth and didn't abuse it like a cancer!
The second questioner obviously had an agenda. He was fighting for a lost cause because he was annoyed that he was wrong. He probably works at the discovery institute. 😊
Why should the social consequences of any discovery matter? It’s an absolute non-sequitor.
As a devout Christian I would not want I.D. taught in my child's school as a SCIENCE. As a philosophy I think it's very interesting and just plain fun and intellectually stimulating. My problem with some of these I.D. deniers and scientists in general is they have such closed minds.
I used to call myself an atheist and thought Darwin was a genius. Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero.
.
Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches, and turtles et al? Zero again.
.
Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genomes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations.
.
Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
.
Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column.
.
The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor life forms, like trilobites. are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland. In fact, 90% of the fossils on land are marine. Golly, how did that seawater get everywhere all over the planet? Hmmm....
.
Take a look. See the ocean floor dwelling, now extinct, so called "Cambrian", trilobites found on mountain tops all over the world. (They are supposed to be at the bottom of the GC.) www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites%20On%20Mountains&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=trilobites%20on%20mountains&sc=0-23&sk=&cvid=9008D75298A54105AD924CA3AACAE385 Notice the exquisitely preserved details on many. This is also seen with innumerable sea shells, mollusks, etc.
.
Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved, intact and conjoined, vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils in the countless billions to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains. Not uncommonly the fossils are in their original shape with perfect details as you see in the link. "Plate tectonics" are purely speculaitons, piled on theories, heaped on hypotheses. They can't explain the lack of erosion which should have caused those fossils to be nothing but dust and rubble after their so called millions of years trek.
.
(And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.)
.
The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). Again, the fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 90% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. Even the one by the Aborigines of Australia is highly similar to what the Bible reports.
.
So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minuscle changes that leave them basically what they were before.
.
You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species in a genus moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom to become a new family. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from an order, class, phylum or Kingdom.)
.
Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over - in the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past.
.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any lifeform of Family A to turn into a lifeform of Family B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, dolphins stay dolphins, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, tulips stay tulips, chimps stay chimps, fruit flies stay fruit lies, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change.
.
This fits in with what the Bible says about creation having been halted. What also fits is that no new strands of DNA are ever created. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy, on and on. DNA can be somewhat altered by mutations and natural selection, selective breeding and even genetic engineering, but is never seen to be created from "scratch."
.
What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense.
.
The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many.
.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidence-free, data-free, descendants. We'll call that science."
.
This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years.
.
"Missing links" (2 to 5 million Darwin years' worth of them between you and Lucy or some other such "transition" du jour) is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious!
.
Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them used in every defense in evolutionary literature.
.
Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind.
.
Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory.
.
You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him, too If you think He made you through evolution, you have a lot to learn about Him - and science, real science. . Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
Nick Nack Ya know what would really be great? If you could present actual DATA to support your faith in evolutionism.
There is a fast and easy way for you to convince me that evolution happens. You only have to use 1 or 2 sentences to do that. Just provide the information I request below.
.
First, we are told that the two forces behind evolution are natural selection and "beneficial" mutations. So fine. Name a life form. Then name an act of natural selection, or a mutation, that you can demonstrate is causing the life form to "evolve" as the result of either of those.
.
Now remember that the poster kids for evolution are things like antibiotic resistant and nylon eating bacteria, snowflake yeast, some geckos, spotted salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, sickle cell anemia victims and lactose intolerant people. The problem is - and this is always true in evolutionary claims - the so called proof proves the exact opposite of what is claimed.
.
The bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, fruit flies, peppered moths, and people - and all their descendants - are staying nothing but bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, and homo sapiens. Or, if that is not true, what are they "evolving" into that is not in those categories? Cite your data.
.
No one ever gives the data asked for, however. They may change the subject, or make excuses. They may try to pass the buck and tell me "Your answers are out there on the net. Somewhere." At the same time they don't show that they, themsleves, have done any research at all on the topic. They may put down a glut of words, but none of those words ever names the life form, or the act of natural selection or beneficial mutation, that I asked for.
.
Now, there are countless life forms out there. The vast bulk of them are microscopic ones that multiply at rocket rates. Further, we are told that evolution is going on all the time. Surely, if evolution is true, you ought to be able to find just one life form, as requested, and offer your evidence that natural selection or a mutation is causing it to evolve?
.
Real science requires real evidence. When we are told as gawd's truth fact that such and such is true and there is zero observable data to support that idea, and when, in fact, we are told that such and such is true when it actually contradicts the data, what do we have? Pseudoscience.
.
But, hey, if you like thinking you have a bunch of hairy knuckle draggers hanging from your family tree, and don't want to believe you are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and loved by your Creator, who am I to burst your bubble?
@Nick Nack As predicted, you dodged the questions and changed the subject. Typical YT evolution defender approach. Referring to me as childish is also a change of subject and also totally typical in replacing data with personal insults. I have seen consistently, over and over, that such posters never do say a single thing based on observable scientific data. They are purely faith and insult based.
Their irrelevant verbal abuse escalates with further exchanges however. Therefore, after these two posts, you will go on ignore. Why waste your precious time and mine in fruitless exchanges? But for any (may it be you some day) who have eyes to see, I will leave some information. Then, bye!!
Life forms have imperfections because they are now in a fallen world. That's sin the Bible, which of course, you currently do not believe. The reason for belief in my "God", the Creator of the Bible, is for one thing due to the DATA.
Unlike evolution, which you cannot defend with data because the full, spin free, data opposes it every time, the Bible holds up to the data.
Part 1
The evidences for the Bible are too numerous to mention and include areas such as archaeology, history, fulfilled prophecies and, yes, science.
Let's start with DNA. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on. Yes, it can be altered to a limited extent, but no new strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted. And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, where would they get it from? Cite your data, if any.
Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to family, to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past.
Hundreds of thousands of species of beetles stay beetles, thousands and thousands of species of trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever, stay trees, bees, bacteria, fish, lizards, whatever. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. But if you can give an example to the contrary, by all means do so.
The Bible talks about a Great Flood. There are countless billions of fossils all over the planet. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 95% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Hmmmm....
There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world.
If you think there was a Geologic Column, link close up photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them.
If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are used to create theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative. But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains." The real scientific data, and common sense, tell us those fossils would be nothing but dust in rubble in all that time.
And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues, including flesh with liquid blood in it, in dinosaur bones all the time. There always is some unverifiable, never supported by actual data, "reason" given for why such things lasted, of course. The actual data from forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored.
Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football.
The Bible says people lived for hundreds of years in Old Testament times. We cannot prove that. But we can prove that in the ancient past dinos did! Again, they started out small, but got to be gigantic. Now lizards keep growing as long as they live. Obviously there was a different eco system back then that allowed the dinos, unlike modern day lizards, to keep on growing for hundreds of years. (And giant-ism, of course, was no way confined to just dinos. There used to be rhinos as big as houses, for example.) Would not that more favorable, pre Flood, eco system have allowed for longer lives in humans, too?
And btw, I have sometimes had evolution believers to demand that they be shown bunny bones with dino bones. This vid goes over the Ashley Phosphate fossil beds which show a vast, 18 inch deep, jumble of fossils including those from dinos, people, rabbits, horses, rhinos, whales and on and on.
czcams.com/video/4rAdxc1JKHA/video.html
Extinction also demonstrates the Biblical truth that creation has stopped. If evolution were true the fossil record would show more different kinds of animals in the present than in the past. Instead we see the opposite, that there are far less different kinds of animals seen today than in the past.
Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex.
Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen?
Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., but once again there is zero data to support any such claim.
Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal.
If the Creator went to all that "trouble" to create that little, high tech, nano machine called a bacterial flagellum, how much more does He care about you, in whom He placed it?
Part 2
A new book called Physicians' Untold Stories lists many doctors' reports about divine intervention they have seen in their practice. In one case a woman who had not walked for years, and who was on her death bed from multiple sclerosis. was prayed over. Suddenly the Almighty told her to "Get up and walk." That she did, with the sudden appearance of new muscles in her legs. She is now leading a completely normal, healthy, life.
And there is much, much more... Anyone: When you see the well documented miracles below, if you want to say "Anecdotes", sorry, I can't take you seriously. I'm quite sure that when you get your own medical or doctor reports that you say no such thing. If you can't tell the difference between anecdotes and medical reports, and scientific research, perhaps you should spend some time curled up with a dictionary.
Also, if you want to quote some site that tries to trash the Shroud of Turin, I leave you with a rhetorical Q. Should I listen to people who were never anywhere near the Shroud , or to the team of scientists who examined it and put their findings in peer reviewed science journals, and to the scientist who invented carbon 14 dating who is seen in the vid? (There he can be seen saying that the "medieval age" carbon 14 datings of the Shroud are invalid due to contamination.) That's not a tough decision.
Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and raised the dead and healed the sick. He multiplied food out of nothing. He said we could do even greater things than He did. The Bible also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories?
See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church. czcams.com/video/sPHycsIdB1Y/video.html .
See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. czcams.com/video/Xyko-56NCSw/video.html The DNA in every cell in her body was changed.
See CBN's short vid with Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him. czcams.com/video/c3Zjt8r-hNA/video.html . Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead. czcams.com/video/s-7ZkleLu1w/video.html Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story.
Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth. czcams.com/video/CfdG5czaUX0/video.html
The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles.
On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured.
Bruce Van Natta was in a horrific accident where he lost about 80% of his small intestine. Someone he didn't even know was told to get on a plane and lay hands on him and pray for him. His small intestines grew back competely and you can see his doctors testifying to that. czcams.com/video/fYwFqeHBA28/video.html
Here we see many witnesses reporting donated food being miraculously multiplied for people who lived in a dump in Juarez. czcams.com/video/gwsuYYIJ3Rg/video.html
And btw do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who can make body parts and food out of nothing, Someone Who created time, space, matter, and energy - needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you.
Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a blood stained linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. czcams.com/video/XTtDhvk_aw4/video.html
The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud.
In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into stewardship of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals.
The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology.
About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck."
Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out. You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out."
It's not about religion. It's about Him. And you.
ROFL Such irony in your statement.
You have to feel very sorry for Miller, faced with such overwhelming and compelling evidence of God's nonexistence, yet clinging to a hope of something supernatural out there.
+Dr Resistance I disagree. There is no evidence of God's non-existence. Also, there is no evidence of God's existence.
+ilikethisnamebetter Actually there is evidence overflowing of a Creator. This is seen from cosmology (See Thomas Kindell's vid Thermodynamic Evidence For Creation for ex.) to bacteriology.In the area of bacteriology I will give you just one example which you will not be able to explain. Now biochemist Michael Behe has already given you his example, which you may have heard about, of irreducible complexity in the bacterial flagellum, but I will give one I prefer. The b.f. "debunks" are all strawmen and based on fantasies, not data, about what happened in the conveniently unverifiable past - i.e. using evolution's standard use of the presuming omniscience logical fallacy. My example makes those illogical and unscientific ploys way less likely.Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its whip and motor. Without the whip and motor the b.f. cannot do its job. Both the whip and motor are useless unless both of them are fully formed and fully functional. Now how and why would "evolution" sloooowly build up nubs and stubs of those two parts, while totally useless, and hold them in evolutionary limbo until they were complete?Again, the evidence for a Creator, through intelligent design and in many other ways, is overflowing. The Bible says life was created all at once, fully formed. Once you get past the evo. spin doctoring, that's what we always see in real life and in the fossil recordOn the other hand the evidence for evolution is always based on numerous logical fallacies, theories presented as evidence, faith in the unseen (like countless billions of "missing" links) presented as scientific fact, and sometimes outright lies both verbal and visual.Don't miss out on your Heavenly Father. He loves you and wants you to know and love Him, too. Give Him a call. He's never too busy for you. If you want to know if He exists, then incerely from the heart, ask HIM.
+Lorica Lass
If you actually read the Dover court case transcript, you would discover Miller *destroyed* Behe's bacterial flagellum argument.
Take your bible thumping nonsense back to church. lol
Lorica Lass Thomas Kindell??? The thermodynamics video?? LOL! I've debunked that whole hour-long video! Haha.. I don't have it on video, but I have it in writing.
FusedChromosomes So I'm just to accept on faith that you have debunked someone or something? Notice you present no scientific data about anything. Like, how do we tell 2 to 5 million Darwin years of "missing' links between you and Lucy aren't just non existent links?
Like how come evolutionists keep pushing the idea that life can come from inorganic matter - all over the net and YT and with the primal pond theory - when everything shows life only comes from life and life of the same kind. Like....well, what does it matter?
You aren't ever going to try to refute anything said with actual scientific observable data. Your mind was...created. for so much more.
Evolution is Gods mind.
-Below are some Qs for you to answer which require only logic and science. There is no reference to Deity or the Bible since evolution stands or falls based on science and logic alone. When you see that you cannot answer the Qs - and no evo devotees ever answer them, only change the subject and dodge, evade, ignore them - be honest with yourself and notice that your...faith....in evolution is not really founded on understanding of the scientific issues.
Before looking at the Qs you might want to Google Quotes Showing The Credulity of Evolutionists to see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other scientists, including evolutionists (!) admitting there is no...evidence... for evolution! If they don't buy it, why should you?
Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that. After all, we have been examining bacteria since 1670, pretty much 24/7 around the globe, and they multiply at rocket rates.
I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it. Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc.
Bacteria can be fossilized. Examples have been found in so called "earliest, Cambrian" layers of the earth, and they are all just bacteria, w/no evidence they are turning into anything else at all.
We are told that nylon eating bacteria are evidence for evolution. Yeal, they made a change. But change is not evolution. Dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc. have been changed for thousands of years. They give evidence against evolution because all that change has led to are....dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc.
Evolutionary literature tells us that nylon eating bacteria are a poster child for evolution because they learned to eat nylon from factory run off into their ponds. Nylon eating bacteria have not so much as changed their species even. They go right back to normal eating patterns in normal ponds. So explain how they are turning into uber bacteria climbing up Darwin's Tree to turn into you? Explain that now, don't dodge it.
Give any evidence whatsoever that any bacteria whatsoever ever stopped being a bacteria. Theories which have no evidence to back them up, when presented as scientific fact, make only for pseudo science.
Kindly don't say, "Change is evolution." It is ultra easy to prove that is totally untrue. That's one of evolution's big myths. All those bacteria, fish, birds, bugs, plants, people, etc. etc. keep changing and changing. And they all stay bacteria, birds, bugs, plants, people etc. etc. So what change really shows is that it does NOT lead to evolution!
Back to Dawkins, he teaches that time, space, matter and energy and you,. everything, comes from....nothing. Rotfl! What kind of "science" is that? Doesn't science, doesn't common sense, show that nothing comes from nothing? In fact, they show us that an effect can never be greater than its cause.
Qs, # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evoltuion. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless varieties, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds.
Cite observed data that demonstrates an occurence of unique genetic information resulting through natural selection - not just the reshuffling of, or elimination of, genetic information that is already available in the life form. Name the life form and verify its before and after states.
In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention. To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc.
(Funny how, with evolution supposedly being the norm, there is not one example of any such changes with the countless billions of reptiles found on the planet, and ditto the countless fish that are not seen turning into reptiles but into anything but fish. Find me a toe on a single fish, a feather on a single reptile, for ex.. living or fossil. And no those supposed "protofeathers" found on some ancient reptile fossils have been described by some....evolutionists....as being only collagenous fibers.)
Tell me where science has ever observed any such things happening with DNA. It is all very well to say "Well, it all happened so long ago...." What evidence is there in that? How do you tell a missing link from a nonexistent link?
Qs, # 3 We are told that mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. Virtually all of them are harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot? Fish don't have DNA for feet. To change a fin into a foot you need new. foot, DNA. Explain how mutations could create DNA. Give evidence for where that has ever been seen to happen. In fact, explain how DNA came about period by any mechanism.
Please don't tell me that the sickle cell anemia nmutation is leading to evolution, as some evolutionists have claimed. No, it just replaces one horrible disease for another through bent blood cells. How is that going to make the hapless victims more likely to produce healthy, viable, offspring? How do bent blood cells have the capacity to turn the victims some day into uber people, climbing up Darwin's Tree?
Do your research in peer reviewed evolutionary literature and when you do check for theorietcal dodge words like "Probably....must have...likely....we can infer...it appears that...similar homology [Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy which undergirds all of evolutionary theory]....millions of years ago [stated as Gawd's truth scientific fact though such happenings in those periods of "time" are untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable....ev-i-dence-less.]...etc."
I promise you, you will always find those kinds of "fuzz factor" words, usually in the first paragraph. And I promise you that speculations piled on logical fallacies piled on presumptions mixed in with sophistry will almost always be counted as "evidence" in the peer reviews.
Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy, Australopithecus, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale?
How do you know a "transition", like Tiktaalilk and all the others, isn't just what it looks like - what the only evidence shows - a dead end, extinct, life form? And btw look at modern day lobe finned fish that are virtually the same as Tik.
Research the history of how they told you another lobefinned fish, Coelacanath, WAS a transition. They used their Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause , etc. and Presuming Omniscience magic crystal ball that sees into the past to tell people that. Tons of peer reviews said the presumed to be extinct Coelacanth was turning into a reptile. Then they found some live ones. You can see the pretty blue...fish period...swimming on CZcams.
There are countless billions of fossils out there but that's an example of the best they can do to prove there are transitional forms. Please don't say "walking catfish". They are 100% fish with 100% fins used in a novel way, similar to "flying fish" which no way are turning into birds.
Fish and dolphins, etc. have astronomically more "characteristics of" and "similar homology" features than amabulocetus and a whale. Ditto Tiktaalik and a tetrapod. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales, both mammals, have sonar. Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Cockatoos and people dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fall-a-cy.
The only matching "characteristic of" ambulocetus is a minor similarity in the inner ear to that of a whale. Based on that we're supposed to believe ambulocetus turned into a great whale? Again Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fallacy,not scientific evidence. To use it as evidence is illogical, therefore antiscience.
Oh, and before you say "Geologic Column" that is a mythical construct developed by a 19th century lawyer named Charles Lyell. He never saw one and no one else has either. Sites like Talk Spin, aka Talk Origins, claim they found part of one on this entire planet. What does the fossil record really show? Fossils are jumbled. There are so called Cambrian and PreCambrian seashells, mollusks, etc. littering the tops of most mountains. Dino bones from the so called lower level Jurassic area stick out of moumntain ranges in the northwestern states. Where I grew up, in a midwestern state, you can find extinct, ocean floor trylobytes in the hills. If you want more documentation I can give you quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting that the dating of the rocks is "very subjective" and that people try to match their dates to presumed Darwinian expectations.
And btw I've seen a clip of Miller on the Colbert show where he stated that as an RC he believes that "Jesus Christ is the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen." This was in between times when he was stumping against intelligent design. Ya gotta wonder who his Jesus Christ is. Apparently he is dumb and design-free. But hey, if a dumb, design-free deity "created all that is, seen and unseen", that's pretty big miracle, huh?
Come out of the matrix. Find out who you really are.
+Lorica Lass Amazing questions and very well thought out. I am replying so that I can stay in touch with any answers or discussions. Thanks for taking the time to write these.
pashmpoosh Thanks so much for a kind, supportive comment. I had posted those Qs, and other comments in many places, particularly under Ken Miler's vids. They usually get no response. However, here you can find recent examples of responses seen in my drop down box:
Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome posted by Kanaal Van Weirdo3467,
Ken Miller The Collapse of Intelligent Design posted by bdwilson 1000 (started in my reply to a post in a string started by Bjorne Soegaard), Creationism Hear The Scientists Respond. In the last example my responses got out of order when I tried to fix a YT glitch so it may seem at first that I am not responding to the one who is debating with me.
On that same, last, page there are also exchanges under a post started by Doc Reasonable. The subject of the Sabbath came up. Frankly, you may find my responses, there, to be objectionable, maybe even offensive. I did not want to offend anyone, including you. I know most people have not researched this topic from an historical or Biblical point of view the way I have. I don't think people who keep a Sunday "Sabbath" are going to hell or anything. I just think they are not fully informed . I received so many blessings from mainstream Christianity, and still do, though I am now what is called Messianic, or Torah observant.
Blessings to you and yours my friend. :-)
***** Thanks again for the reply, I will look up your discussions. Oh I totally agree with you about the Sabbath. Sadly a lot of Christians don't dig enough to realize the foundation of modern Christianity today is the council of Nicaea in which the marriage of church and state really happened in 325 AD. If you read the story as I am sure you might have you will see they exiled anyone who disagreed. That is NOT the spirit of God!
Ironically if you look at the bible itself in act 2 and 4 it says that "all the believers were together and shared all things in common". That seems to be the pattern the apostles wanted to establish following Jesus (Yahshua) rising from the dead.
I think that at the end of the first century the church was really falling apart as evident even by the book of James talking about the corruption inside the churches. What we see now in the form of a very divided Christianity (that keeps compromising in order to get converts) is sadly just a shell of the radical lifestyle of love and sharing Jesus came to establish.
pashmpoosh What an interesting post. Thank you for it. Actually I don't remember hearing what you report there about the Council of Nicea and will definitely have to check that out.
Yes, I agree with all you had to say. We have come a long way from where we need to be. Like for ex.....I am just now researching documented cases of medical healings as the result of prayer to our Messiah. The best so far are a colon that regrew 3 feet after surgery, Ronald Coyne who could see out of an empty eye socket for years, Dean Braxton who was clinically dead for 1 3/4 hours and is now alive and normal, and a man raised to life after 40 minutes dead by cardiologist Dr. Cranshaw, also alive and normal. All the above cases are verified by doctors. You can see them saying so on YT.
Well, that is way off track, but what I'm saying is we can get back on track, can't we? Like, if those people could see miracles as in the first century, so can you and I and many others. I suspect there will a move of miracles in these last days and that some people, at least, will start being like first century believers.
+pashmpoosh hmmm, I"m sure the bible says 'all the believers were together' but that makes me wonder what the original language was before it was subjected to countless translations and interpretations, but mostly it makes me ask about why your god hid himself from the parts of the world where there were already literate societies. If the creator of all that is--foolish thinking if you ask me--wanted 'his people' to know about 'him' and was also omniscent and all powerful then why would he be so regionally selective about his revelation? surely god would have known the great impossibility of middle eastern man finding his way to Asia and the Asian sub-continent.
I personally am proud to know that I am from a common ancestor that once gave a shit about this earth and didn't abuse it like a cancer!