| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2005 06:07:27 PM |
| Object: |
Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
Darwin's Demise
http://www.darwinsdemise.com
Why evolution can't take the heat!
By Nicholas Comninellis, MD
Co-authored with Joe White, President of Kanakuk Kamps.
Published by MasterBooks, 2001. Paperback, 196 pages.
Finally, an honest critique of the scientific evidence for both
evolution and creation. This hard-hitting, cutting-edge book challenges
conventional teaching with provocative, evidence-based answers to some
of the greatest questions of all time: Did life begin as a random
accident? Were living creatures actually designed? How old in fact is
the earth? Are our profs and teachers misleading us? Was Darwin right
about evolution?
Chapter One
How Did Life Begin?
This is a vast question. But is it really important today? Absolutely.
Knowing the truth about our origins is essential because it affects our
attitudes toward ourselves and the way we treat other people. For
example, if we are indeed the end result of billions of years worth of
chance biochemical reactions, as evolutionary theory tries to explain,
then human nature, and even the value of human life, is quite different
than if we are actually the result of an intelligent Creator who
designed us.
The truth about our origin also has an impact on our concept of God,
even our interaction with God. If humans are actually the accidental
by-product of biological mutations, it's a count against there
actually being any superhuman power. But if we're the craftsmanship
of a God who personally planned and designed humans and other
creatures, then this is someone we may want to know more about.
Sorting out answers to the truth of our origins involves some
fascinating work, and touches on the fields of cosmology (study of the
universe), chemistry, physics, statistics, biology, genetics,
paleontology, and archeology. Finding the truth also involves a certain
amount of objectivity and emotional insulation, for some people's
strongest passions are kindled by this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Darwin Defined
For starters, let's be clear about what we mean by evolution. Prior
to the mid-1800s, most people on earth believed that all living things
- each type of animal, plant, and microorganism - were directly
created by God, and had changed very little, if any, since that time.
With few exceptions, most of the great scientists of the 17th and 18th
centuries who actually invented the many disciplines that scientists
practice today, believed that humans and all other creatures had been
designed by a supernatural Creator.
Then in 1859 Charles Darwin published his book Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection, also entitled The Preservation of Favored
Races in the Struggle for Life or Origin of the Species, for short.
Darwin impressed the world with the proposal that all life began from a
single cell, and that over millions of years living creatures have
continually changed and adapted, becoming more complex and varied.
Darwin: A Closer Look
Charles Darwin's father and grandfather were physicians, and Charles
initially sought to follow in their footsteps. In spite of being a
less-than-sterling student, he entered Cambridge University in 1828,
and eventually graduated with a degree in theology. After Cambridge,
Darwin planned to enter the ministry somewhere in the English
countryside.
One day he received a letter from Captain Fitzroy, a decorated seaman
who commanded the sailing vessel Beagle. Darwin was offered the
position of naturalist on an upcoming five-year, round-the-world ocean
voyage. He accepted. During the voyage, he made copious notes of his
observations, especially of the varieties within species. In
particular, Darwin noticed as many as 13 varieties of finches, a small
tropical bird.
Years after returning from the Beagle voyage, Darwin began to form his
philosophy of origins. He suggested that varieties within species (such
as finches) occurred spontaneously. In the struggle to survive in a
harsh world, some varieties were better suited than others. Those who
were superior lived and reproduced, while those who were weaker died
off. He proposed that this process of spontaneous variation and
"survival of the fittest" continued over millions of years, and
resulted in the tremendous varieties of life we find today.
Darwin was initially praised by some as a marvelous thinker. His
evolutionary approach impacted many fields, including biology,
astronomy, ethics, religion, psychology, and philosophy. In stark
contrast to his theological training, Darwin later demonstrated
enormous contempt for anything Christian. He wrote:
"The Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the
earth, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus,
or the beliefs of any barbarian. The New Testament is a damnable
doctrine. [I can] hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to
be true."
The world rapidly accepted Darwin as an authority and adopted his
explanation as fact. Within 50 years, most of the scientific community,
and indeed much of the western world, had confidence in his leading.
Darwin's theory of evolution today remains the most widely held
explanation for the origin of life. In short, it says simply that all
living things arose randomly from an inorganic, inanimate world. In
this theory, all living things are interrelated. Humans and apes, for
example, are believed to have begun from a single animal five to twenty
million years ago. Likewise, primates (which include men and apes) are
believed to have begun from a single animal approximately seventy-five
million years ago.
Similar connections are imagined throughout the entire animal and plant
kingdoms. The study of these hypothetical relationships is called
phylogeny, and they can be illustrated by a so-called phylogenetic
tree.
Evolution, as it is commonly understood today, depends upon four
factors. Evolutionists (people who have confidence in the theory of
evolution) explain them in this way:
1. Spontaneous generation. This means that life arose from inanimate
(dead) material. In a pond or other moist environment (referred to as
the pre-biotic soup), a perfect combination of carbon-based molecules
happened to be present at the same instant. Denying all scientific
logic, a DNA code, nucleus, cell wall, and energy-generating apparatus
- the minimum requirements for a living cell - were all somehow
present, each having randomly come together on its own. This first cell
reproduced itself and the first life was off to a start.
2. Random mutation. Minor changes in the DNA code are thought to
occur spontaneously within a creature. Most of these are attributed to
"accidents" that happen when the creature's genetic code is
copied at the time of reproduction. Outside radiation and chemicals are
also thought to play a role.
The result of these random mutations is a new creature, slightly
different from the first. Most importantly, it will either be better or
less well prepared to live in its environment. Most mutations are
harmful to a creature. So, a high number would be necessary to increase
the chances of a positive mutation taking place.
3. Natural selection. Darwin realized that many more creatures were
born than actually survived well. He observed a struggle for existence
in which the stronger creatures survived and the weaker ones died off.
This process is called natural selection.
Any random mutation that results in a "weaker" creature,
evolutionists reason, would cause the early elimination of that plant
or animal. By contrast, any random mutation which increased the
strength or fertility of a plant or animal would give it an advantage
in the struggle for existence.
4. Time. Random mutations do not occur very often, and most
mutations are damaging. Yet many positive mutations are necessary to
give rise to a new creature. What is needed to make the process work is
time, and lots of it.
The accumulation of many small but favorable mutations over time is
evolution's explanation for converting a microscopic bacterial cell
into a human being. Yet even over many millions of years, as explained
later, such a process would never have enough time to occur.
Tiny Changes Don't Count
It's also important to point out what is not considered to be
evolution. Evolution does not refer to changes or adaptations within a
particular basic type of plant or animal. Rather, evolution -
sometimes specified as "macroevolution" - refers to one basic
type transforming into another. Textbooks often describe adaptations
that have taken place in biology - small changes within certain
species. This process of adaptation is sometimes called
"microevolution." This is an actual occurrence - a fact on which
all scientists agree. A common error is made in scientific reasoning,
unfortunately, when these adaptations (or microevolution) are used to
assume that "macroevolution" (evolution from one basic type of
living creature into another) also takes place.
Each basic type of living creature has its own unique gene pool or
genetic code. Basic types of animals are fairly readily recognized, and
include the dog/wolf type, the elephant type, the chimpanzee type, the
rat type, and so forth.
All humans belong to the basic "human" type. Tiny variations may
occur within our type, such as differences in eye color, hair
distribution, and skin color in the case of humans. In the case of
corn, varieties seem to have arisen over the years, including starch
corn, flint corn, sweet corn, pod corn, popcorn, and dent corn.
Macroevolution does not refer to such limited changes, changes which do
not lead to a new basic type of plant or animal.
What the theory of evolution does say is that dogs and cats arose from
a common ancestor; an ancestor that over time diversified itself into
mammals of different basic types. The theory also postulates that
sparrows, finches, parrots, and blackbirds all came from a common
forefather, such as an ancestral reptile; one who through the ages
transformed itself into new basic types.
Some will refer to the subtle changes within basic types (for example,
eye color among humans) as evidence of evolution in progress, that many
such tiny changes could eventually lead to a new basic type. The
critical evidence for evolution, however, lies not in proving tiny
changes, but in proving the transformation of one basic type into
another.
Breeding and Artificial Selection Don't Count
Sometimes evolutionists point to artificial selection of plants and
breeding of animals as evidence for evolution. They say that such
breeding is simply evolution in fast motion, helped along by human
decision-makers. Anyone with experience in breeding plants or animals,
however, quickly comes to three conclusions:
1. Breeding and artificial selection can accomplish only limited
results. For example, an experiment was performed in France to increase
the sugar content in table beets. In the beginning, the beets consisted
of 6% sugar. After years of artificial selection, the sugar content
increased to 17%. However, continued artificial selection did not
succeed in further increasing the sugar content.
2. The creature remains the same basic type. Even with intense
breeding and artificial selection, no fundamental change occurs in the
creature. Scientific experiments can create horses with shorter hair,
chickens that lay more eggs, and corn with higher protein content. But
in each situation, limits are reached. The breeders still ended up with
the same basic types of horses, chickens, and corn they had in the
beginning.
3. Breeding and artificial selection often reduce survivability.
Where modifications are made, the creature is usually weaker. It does
not compete well with the original type. Falconer explains this well:
"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best
demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that
have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a
reduction of fitness, for life under natural conditions, and only the
fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural
conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."
Breeding and artificial selection result in variations in existing
traits only, and these are with the assistance of human genius. These
are completely insufficient to prove evolution as a "natural" and
spontaneous process since nothing new or complex arises, and the change
accomplished is always extremely limited.
No matter what combinations may occur, the human basic type always
remains human, and the dog basic type never ceases to be dog. In fact,
breeding and artificial selection may actually demonstrate the maximum
limits of evolution. The most modified creatures survive only because
they are kept where they have ample food, and are protected from
natural enemies.
The Evidence Please
To prove whether or not a theory is true requires some honest
investigation. The very best evidence for the truth of a theory is to
observe the subject in action. Unfortunately, it is impossible to turn
back time and take notes on the early development of life on our
planet.
The next best evidence would come from constructing an experiment to
test whether or not evolution seems to be currently happening, or is
even a possibility. However, evolution is said to only take place over
millions of years, making such an experiment impossible to undertake!
Lacking the above options, we are left with looking for indirect
evidence of evolution. This evidence can come from three main sources:
=B7 Probability. Spontaneous generation and random mutations are
events for which we can estimate the probabilities of them happening.
Natural selection can also be statistically analyzed. If evolution is
indeed true, we should find that the mathematical probability is
reasonable. In today's scientific research, most investigations
demand that the odds of being correct be at least 95%. Similarly, we
would expect the mathematical odds favoring evolution to be quite good.
=B7 Earth Age. Since evolution demands millions of years, determining
the true age of our planet is also essential. Our investigation should
also confirm that the earth is extremely old, on the order of billions
of years. Otherwise, there simply would not be enough time sufficient
for evolution to take place. We should also discover that throughout
the earth's long life, conditions were appropriate for life to
flourish. The air temperature, oxygen concentration, sunlight, and so
on were suitable to support living things.
=B7 The Fossil Record. The fossil layers of the earth's outer crust
serve as a museum of earlier life. If evolution is indeed true, our
investigation should unearth fossils that show a steady progression of
life forms linking, for example, guppies and sharks, finches and
eagles, and apes and humans.
We would expect that the oldest and deepest layers of fossils would
contain the earliest, most primitive forms of life. As we search
through younger, shallower layers, we would expect to find a gradual
transition of the more primitive life forms into more complex ones. We
would also expect that fossils of new life forms would not appear
suddenly, but would show gradual changes or transitions.
Evolutionists claim, for example, that fish evolved into amphibians.
So, we can expect to find transitional forms illustrating the gradual
transition of fins into feet and legs, among other changes. Since the
transition from fish to amphibian would have required many millions of
years (during which time many millions, even billions, of the
transitional forms must have lived) fossils of many of these
transitional forms should be discovered.
If reptiles turned into birds, as is claimed, then we should also
expect to find fossils with gradual extending of the front feet of the
reptile into the form of wings like a bird, along with the reptile's
leathery skin transforming into feathers. The fossil record ought to
reveal many millions of transitional, intermediate life forms. They
should fill museum collections.
The fact that many people believe evolution is true is not enough to
prove it. The fact that some creatures show similarities with other
creatures is insufficient to prove that they evolved from one another.
If evolution is accurate, it must be supported by fossils, a very old
earth, and the laws of probability. We will return to these three
proofs in the coming chapters.
Creative Alternative
The only other credible explanation for life is that it was
intentionally designed and created. Just looking at the layout of the
earth, planets, and cosmos causes some people to be convinced that a
Designer must exist. Researching the intricacies of human biological
life, our genetic code and internal systems persuades thinkers that
it's impossible for these to have originated by chance. Examining the
claims and evidence for evolution convinces many individuals that there
must be a better explanation.
The Christian view is that God both intentionally planned and produced
the universe and all forms of life. Many scientists, non-Christian
thinkers, and those of other philosophies also agree. Christian views
about creation, and many other subjects, are found in the book called
the Bible. Creation is primarily explained in Genesis, at the very
beginning of the Bible.
For the sake of those not familiar with Genesis, a brief overview
reveals God first creating the earth, followed by originating the
plants, creating the sun and stars, and then the animals. God's
ultimate creative accomplishment was humankind. Genesis says little
about how God created the universe, except that it happened suddenly
and intentionally. God's design and initiation of the universe is
often called special creation.
Genesis describes God having a close friendship with Adam and Eve, the
very first created people. Adam and Eve had three children, and their
community grew rapidly. Genesis chapter 5 describes several generations
of people before a special man named Noah was born.
Trouble was growing on earth, for people were ignoring God and treating
one another cruelly. God decided to obliterate life and start over
again. He chose Noah to build an ark (a giant boat) and fill it with a
male and female of every type of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal.
God caused a flood of water to cover the entire earth, rising above
even the highest mountains. All animal life on the planet perished. But
Noah, his family, and the animals were safe in the ark. After a year,
the water had subsided and dry land prevailed. Noah opened the ark and
released the animals to replenish the earth with life.
As we will see later, considerable scientific and historical evidence
supports the events described in Genesis.
Creation Completed
Above, we identified each unique variety of life as a basic type. The
first two chapters of Genesis describe God's creation of each basic
type of plant and animal. It emphasizes that each basic type was
designed to reproduce itself. The minor changes that have occurred in
living things since creation have been limited to changes within
particular basic types.
Special creation does not eliminate the possibility of varieties
occurring within basic types. Each was created with a large enough pool
of genes to give rise to all sorts of varieties within that particular
basic type.
Humans represent a basic type. There are about six billion humans in
the world today. Except for identical twins, no two humans are exactly
alike. None have the exact same gene combination. Yet we are all still
distinctly human.
The situation with dogs is similar. All dogs are variations within that
basic type. Whether a little Chihuahua or a German Shepherd, a beagle
or a bulldog, all dogs have the same basic gene pool that makes them
distinctly dogs. Humans, of course, have bred dogs to create special
breeds. But they are all still dogs.
This is one of the points at which evolution and creation stand in
complete opposition. Evolution holds that transformation takes place
from one basic type into another. Creation holds that variations within
basic types are possible, but that no transformation into new species
has occurred. Instead, all basic types that ever existed - dinosaurs,
bacteria, plants, mammals - were created at the beginning of time,
and since then no new kinds have come into being. This is consistent
with what the Bible says about creation being finished on the sixth
day, as recorded in Genesis 2:2.
Impressive Adherents
People who believe that life was designed and created are often known
as "creationists." Many Christians and believers in various
religions would be known as creationists. Furthermore, numerous
scientists looking at the evidence also hold the creation account as
the best explanation for life. Some of the more famous "creationist
scientists" include:
Biology:
Pasteur - Developed vaccinations and the science of bacteriology
Mendel - Founded the modern science of genetics
Physics:
Newton - Discovered the law of gravity; invented the reflecting
telescope
Genetics:
Mendel - Founded the modern science of genetics
Astronomy:
Copernicus - Discovered the orbit of the planets
Electronics:
Morse - Invented the telegraph
Medicine:
Lister - Developed the science of antiseptic surgery
Chemistry:
Boyle - Developed the sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics
Davy - Developed the science of thermokinetics
The number of today's scientists who adhere to creation is also
impressive. Rejecting the idea of particles-to-people evolution, they
are more convinced by the arguments for an orderly, intentionally
planned universe. Refusing the concept that life simply began by
chance, they see life as telling us something about the Creator
himself.
The Evidence Please
As in the case of evolution, the very best evidence for creation would
come from actually being present and observing the creation of the
universe in action. Lacking this, the next best evidence would come
from studying creation in action today, proving that it is
scientifically possible. Scientists continue to carefully study life.
However, in recorded history no new life forms have been discovered.
The Genesis account, furthermore, says that creation of life forms was
completed back at the beginning of time.
Without evidence like that just described, we are left with looking for
indirect signs of creation. Parallel to evolution, we can look at
evidence from the same three main sources:
=B7 Probability. Since life is so unique and complex, we should find
that the mathematical probability of it occurring spontaneously is
very, very low.
=B7 Earth Age. The age of the earth described in the Bible is
essentially very young; on the order of 6,000-10,000 years. Since all
life was created simultaneously, a longer time frame is unnecessary to
explain its existence. Our scientific findings regarding earth's age
should show a young planet.
=B7 The Fossil Record. If creation is true, we'd expect to find a
sudden, explosive appearance in the fossil record of highly complex
forms of life. We would predict that fossils of all of the major types
of plants and animals would appear abruptly. We also expect to find no
sign of transitional forms linking one basic type to another in the
fossil record.
We would anticipate finding fossilized remains of mice, lizards, cats,
dogs, cows, elephants, horses, bats, dinosaurs, sharks, monkeys, apes,
and men. Each basic type from its earliest fossils would be fully
developed and possess the characteristics that set it apart from all
others.
Either creation is true or evolution is true. No other possible
explanation for life exists. The fact that some people believe in
creation or evolution is not enough to prove that one or the other is
correct. The evidence from fossils, the age of the earth, and the laws
of probability is essential.
Watch Your Bias
Searching out honest answers to big questions is admirable. It's also
difficult. One of the major obstacles comes from each person's bias.
Bias means our tendency to find what we first decide we want to find,
rather than what's actually there. It means our inclination to see
what we really desire to see, rather than seeing what actually exists.
People are prone to let their individual bias get in the way of logical
thinking. We tend to wrongly believe, for example, that whites make for
better students, and blacks for better athletes. We unjustly hold that
men should be doctors and women should be nurses. We undeservingly view
young people as less trustworthy than those who have gray hair. Bias
keeps us from living our lives consistent with the actual truth. It
causes you and me to become shortsighted and to miss opportunities.
Investigating ideas of creation and evolution tends to magnify
people's bias even more sharply. Some individuals don't want to be
confronted with a truth that may force them to rethink their entire
perspective on God, history, science, and the value of human life. It
seems easier to just dig in their heels, hanging on to ideas that have
little support, rather than to look at the facts and reconsider.
But denying reality has its costs. Gravity will make you fall, even if
you don't believe it exists. Electricity can shock you, even though
you can't see it. Grasping untrue ideas about origins can cause you
to totally miss some of the most remarkable aspects of life.
A person can try to overcome their own bias by taking these steps:
=B7 Start by clarifying in your mind what it is you believe about this
subject. From whom did you get these ideas? What questions do you have
about them today?
=B7 Decide in advance that you'll reconsider the evidence, and not
let your previous ideas get in the way.
=B7 Promise yourself that, if necessary, you'll change your views and
try to live consistently with the truth surrounding this subject.
Hallucinations consist of imagining things that don't really exist.
No one honestly wants to have hallucinations. Neither do we want to
fill our lives with unreal ideas. Let's find out the truth about
creation and evolution.
Summing Up
How did life begin? It's not an abstract question, for the truth
about our origins affects both our attitudes toward people and also our
interaction with the supernatural.
The popular answer is evolution, that humans and all other living
things are the result of spontaneous generation, random mutations,
natural selection, and millions of years worth of time. Popular as this
idea may be, evolution (if evolution is indeed true) must stand up to
several tests: the probability must be reasonable, the inhabitable
earth must be very old, and fossils must be found showing the
transition from one basic type into another.
The only other possible explanation for life is creation; that God
intentionally designed and produced all living things. For evidence,
we'd expect to find creatures so intricate they could not have arisen
on their own, a young planet consistent with the Bible's account of
creation, and a lack of fossils that clearly show transitions between
creatures.
The subject of evolution and creation is complicated by people's
tendency to see what they want to see, rather than seeing the facts as
they really are. By keeping our bias under control, however, we can
discover the real truth about how life began.
.
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
15 Aug 2005 06:48:46 PM |
|
|
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1124147247.163415.316500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Darwin's Demise
http://www.darwinsdemise.com
<snipped the usual crap>
Also by our illustrious MD who is thus emmintenly qualified to question
evolution.
http://www.creativeenergy.org/
Creative Defence - published by Masterbooks 2001
<quote> Christians are challenged to stand up against evolutionary
thinking, yet the subject is complex and daunting. Creative Defense contains
the most useful and powerful arguments, references, and quotations to help
Christians defend creation and denounce evolution. Topics include the
complexity of life, spontaneous generation, natural selection, age of the
Earth, the fossil record, and evidence of creation.
</quote>
So there is no agenda here eh ?
And the co-author of Darwins Demise - Joe White ... President (no less!) of
Kanakuk Kamps - http://www.kanakuk.com/ ........wow!!!!!!!! how can the
scientific community stand against these two giants ?
Regards
Steve
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
15 Aug 2005 08:14:38 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1124147247.163415.316500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Darwin's Demise
Dead on arrival.
Overwhelming evidence for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
15 Aug 2005 09:29:22 PM |
|
|
On 16 Aug 2005 13:14:38 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
wordsoftruth114@email.com wrote in
news:1124147247.163415.316500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Darwin's Demise
Dead on arrival.
Overwhelming evidence for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Klazmon.
Well spotted, but there's no way wordsoflies will ever read anything
intelligent.
--
Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Oswald Ving" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
15 Aug 2005 09:20:40 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1124147247.163415.316500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Darwin's Demise
http://www.darwinsdemise.com
Why evolution can't take the heat!
<Snip>
Chapter One
How Did Life Begin?
Darwin didn't even speculate on the beginning of life, nor does Biological
Evolutionary Theory say anything about it.
That means these guys:
By Nicholas Comninellis, MD
Co-authored with Joe White, President of Kanakuk Kamps.
....are either monumental liars, monumentally stupid, monumentally ignorant
and arrogant, or all three simultaneously.
In any case, their attack on science is pathetic.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
16 Aug 2005 03:19:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Darwin's Demise
http://www.darwinsdemise.com
Why evolution can't take the heat!
Evolution has been taking the heat for 150 years. Creationists don't
even know how to turn the stove on.
By Nicholas Comninellis, MD
Co-authored with Joe White, President of Kanakuk Kamps.
Published by MasterBooks, 2001. Paperback, 196 pages.
Finally, an honest
BWA-HA-HA-HA! That'll be a first.
critique of the scientific evidence for both
evolution and creation. This hard-hitting, cutting-edge book challenges
conventional teaching with provocative, evidence-based answers to some
of the greatest questions of all time: Did life begin as a random
accident? Were living creatures actually designed? How old in fact is
the earth? Are our profs and teachers misleading us? Was Darwin right
about evolution?
Chapter One
How Did Life Begin?
This is a vast question. But is it really important today? Absolutely.
Knowing the truth about our origins is essential because it affects our
attitudes toward ourselves and the way we treat other people. For
example, if we are indeed the end result of billions of years worth of
chance
There's that loaded word again.
biochemical reactions, as evolutionary theory tries to explain,
then human nature, and even the value of human life, is quite different
than if we are actually the result of an intelligent Creator who
designed us.
The truth about our origin also has an impact on our concept of God,
even our interaction with God.
So you assume from the outset that there is a god.
If humans are actually the accidental
by-product of biological mutations, it's a count against there
actually being any superhuman power.
No, actually. It isn't. It's a count against the specific superhuman
power that YOU want to believe in.
But if we're the craftsmanship
of a God who personally planned and designed humans and other
creatures, then this is someone we may want to know more about.
What you want to believe has nothing to do with what is actually true.
Sorting out answers to the truth of our origins involves some
fascinating work, and touches on the fields of cosmology (study of the
universe), chemistry, physics, statistics, biology, genetics,
paleontology, and archeology. Finding the truth also involves a certain
amount of objectivity and emotional insulation
I guess that leaves creationists out.
, for some people's
strongest passions are kindled by this issue.
Like yours. People like you refuse to even consider the possibility
that evolution might be true. You call that objective?
<SNIP
Darwin later demonstrated
enormous contempt for anything Christian. He wrote:
"The Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the
earth, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus,
or the beliefs of any barbarian. The New Testament is a damnable
doctrine. [I can] hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to
be true."
You don't have to take the bible literally to be a Christian.
The world rapidly accepted Darwin as an authority and adopted his
explanation as fact. Within 50 years, most of the scientific community,
and indeed much of the western world, had confidence in his leading.
Darwin's theory of evolution today remains the most widely held
explanation for the origin of life. In short, it says simply that all
living things arose randomly
No it doesn't.
from an inorganic, inanimate world. In
this theory, all living things are interrelated. Humans and apes, for
example, are believed to have begun from a single animal five to twenty
million years ago. Likewise, primates (which include men and apes) are
believed to have begun from a single animal approximately seventy-five
million years ago.
Similar connections are imagined throughout the entire animal and plant
kingdoms. The study of these hypothetical relationships is called
phylogeny, and they can be illustrated by a so-called phylogenetic
tree.
Evolution, as it is commonly understood today, depends upon four
factors. Evolutionists (people who have confidence in the theory of
evolution) explain them in this way:
1. Spontaneous generation. This means that life arose from inanimate
(dead) material. In a pond or other moist environment (referred to as
the pre-biotic soup), a perfect combination of carbon-based molecules
happened to be present at the same instant.
No it didn't.
Denying all scientific
logic, a DNA code, nucleus, cell wall, and energy-generating apparatus
- the minimum requirements for a living cell - were all somehow
present
No scientific theory claims anything of the sort. Why do you assume
that the structure of the first cell was the same as that of modern
cells? Life didn't even begin with cells, but with self replicating
molecules, the ancient ancestors of modern DNA.
, each having randomly come together on its own. This first cell
reproduced itself and the first life was off to a start.
I find it insulting that honestly believe that we think that.
2. Random mutation. Minor changes in the DNA code are thought to
occur spontaneously within a creature. Most of these are attributed to
"accidents" that happen when the creature's genetic code is
copied at the time of reproduction. Outside radiation and chemicals are
also thought to play a role.
The result of these random mutations is a new creature, slightly
different from the first. Most importantly, it will either be better or
less well prepared to live in its environment. Most mutations are
harmful to a creature.
No. While there are definatly more harmful mutations than helpful ones,
the vast majority of mutations are neutral, neither helpful nor
harmful.
So, a high number would be necessary to increase
the chances of a positive mutation taking place.
3. Natural selection. Darwin realized that many more creatures were
born than actually survived well. He observed a struggle for existence
in which the stronger creatures survived and the weaker ones died off.
This process is called natural selection.
Any random mutation that results in a "weaker" creature,
evolutionists reason, would cause the early elimination of that plant
or animal. By contrast, any random mutation which increased the
strength or fertility of a plant or animal would give it an advantage
in the struggle for existence.
4. Time. Random mutations do not occur very often,
They occur all the time. Every organism on the planet has some
mutation, some bit of DNA that didn't come from either parent.
and most
mutations are damaging.
Like I said before, no they aren't.
Yet many positive mutations are necessary to
give rise to a new creature. What is needed to make the process work is
time, and lots of it.
The accumulation of many small but favorable mutations over time is
evolution's explanation for converting a microscopic bacterial cell
into a human being. Yet even over many millions of years, as explained
later, such a process would never have enough time to occur.
You forget that benificial mutations are coming from many different
members of the population. It isn't a single line of heredity that has
to evolve.
Tiny Changes Don't Count
Tiny changes are all that evolution is.
It's also important to point out what is not considered to be
evolution. Evolution does not refer to changes or adaptations within a
particular basic type of plant or animal. Rather, evolution -
sometimes specified as "macroevolution" - refers to one basic
type transforming into another.
Evolution refers to both. What is a 'basic type' anyway?
Textbooks often describe adaptations
that have taken place in biology - small changes within certain
species. This process of adaptation is sometimes called
"microevolution." This is an actual occurrence - a fact on which
all scientists agree. A common error is made in scientific reasoning,
unfortunately, when these adaptations (or microevolution) are used to
assume that "macroevolution" (evolution from one basic type of
living creature into another) also takes place.
What you refer to as 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' are the same
process. One simply takes place over a longer period of time.
Each basic type of living creature has its own unique gene pool or
genetic code. Basic types of animals are fairly readily recognized, and
include the dog/wolf type, the elephant type, the chimpanzee type, the
rat type, and so forth.
I still don't understand what a 'basic type' is. Is it a species? What?
My guess is that it's some vague, nebulous concept that you can change
whenever it is convenient for you.
All humans belong to the basic "human" type. Tiny variations may
occur within our type, such as differences in eye color, hair
distribution, and skin color in the case of humans. In the case of
corn, varieties seem to have arisen over the years, including starch
corn, flint corn, sweet corn, pod corn, popcorn, and dent corn.
Macroevolution does not refer to such limited changes, changes which do
not lead to a new basic type of plant or animal.
Who says they don't?
What the theory of evolution does say is that dogs and cats arose from
a common ancestor; an ancestor that over time diversified itself into
mammals of different basic types. The theory also postulates that
sparrows, finches, parrots, and blackbirds all came from a common
forefather, such as an ancestral reptile; one who through the ages
transformed itself into new basic types.
Some will refer to the subtle changes within basic types (for example,
eye color among humans) as evidence of evolution in progress, that many
such tiny changes could eventually lead to a new basic type. The
critical evidence for evolution, however, lies not in proving tiny
changes, but in proving the transformation of one basic type into
another.
Like I said before, evolution consists ENTIRELY of tiny changes. You
seem to be under the assumption that speciation occurs in a single
generation, one of your 'basic types' giving birth to another. Is it so
inconcievable that two populations of a species that are seperated from
each other so they can't interbreed would 'microevolve' away from each
other in different directions so that a million years down the road,
they don't even resemble each other any more, and certainly are no
longer genetically compatible, so they can't interbreed any more.
Breeding and Artificial Selection Don't Count
Sometimes evolutionists point to artificial selection of plants and
breeding of animals as evidence for evolution. They say that such
breeding is simply evolution in fast motion, helped along by human
decision-makers. Anyone with experience in breeding plants or animals,
however, quickly comes to three conclusions:
1. Breeding and artificial selection can accomplish only limited
results. For example, an experiment was performed in France to increase
the sugar content in table beets. In the beginning, the beets consisted
of 6% sugar. After years of artificial selection, the sugar content
increased to 17%. However, continued artificial selection did not
succeed in further increasing the sugar content.
What? You think they could get it up to 100% sugar? There has to be a
cutoff point somewhere, where a beet can't survive with any more sugar.
2. The creature remains the same basic type.
And I STILL don't know what you mean by 'basic type'
Even with intense
breeding and artificial selection, no fundamental changeoccurs in the
creature.
Such as what? What are you expecting to happen?
Scientific experiments can create horses with shorter hair,
chickens that lay more eggs, and corn with higher protein content. But
in each situation, limits are reached. The breeders still ended up with
the same basic types of horses, chickens, and corn they had in the
beginning.
Where they TRYING to breed something else?
3. Breeding and artificial selection often reduce survivability.
Where modifications are made, the creature is usually weaker. It does
not compete well with the original type. Falconer explains this well:
Of course not. They are breeding for specific traits. Being able to
survive in the wild is not one of those traits they are breeding for.
After a while that ability will atrophe
"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best
demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that
have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a
reduction of fitness, for life under natural conditions, and only the
fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural
conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."
Breeding and artificial selection result in variations in existing
traits only,
Yes, that is what evolution DOES! The 'traits' you are talking about
were once 'variations' of other traits.
and these are with the assistance of human genius. These
are completely insufficient to prove evolution as a "natural" and
spontaneous process since nothing new or complex arises, and the change
accomplished is always extremely limited.
No matter what combinations may occur, the human basic type always
remains human,
It took 3,000,000 years for us to evolve from our most recent definitly
non-human ancestor. You expect something interesting to happen in the
10,000 years that we have had recorded history?
and the dog basic type never ceases to be dog.
You are aware that humans bred dogs from wolves, correct?
In fact,
breeding and artificial selection may actually demonstrate the maximum
limits of evolution. The most modified creatures survive only because
they are kept where they have ample food, and are protected from
natural enemies.
The Evidence Please
To prove whether or not a theory is true requires some honest
investigation. The very best evidence for the truth of a theory is to
observe the subject in action. Unfortunately, it is impossible to turn
back time and take notes on the early development of life on our
planet.
Yeah, that is why it is good that we have fossils, and can study the
similarities between the DNA of different species.
The next best evidence would come from constructing an experiment to
test whether or not evolution seems to be currently happening, or is
even a possibility. However, evolution is said to only take place over
millions of years, making such an experiment impossible to undertake!
Evolution as you define it takes millions of years. Evolution as it is
really defined is happening all the time and has been observed on
numerous occasions. Even speciation.
Lacking the above options, we are left with looking for indirect
evidence of evolution. This evidence can come from three main sources:
=B7 Probability. Spontaneous generation and random mutations are
events for which we can estimate the probabilities of them happening.
Natural selection can also be statistically analyzed. If evolution is
indeed true, we should find that the mathematical probability is
reasonable. In today's scientific research, most investigations
demand that the odds of being correct be at least 95%. Similarly, we
would expect the mathematical odds favoring evolution to be quite good.
=B7 Earth Age. Since evolution demands millions of years, determining
the true age of our planet is also essential. Our investigation should
also confirm that the earth is extremely old, on the order of billions
of years. Otherwise, there simply would not be enough time sufficient
for evolution to take place. We should also discover that throughout
the earth's long life, conditions were appropriate for life to
flourish. The air temperature, oxygen concentration, sunlight, and so
on were suitable to support living things.
=B7 The Fossil Record. The fossil layers of the earth's outer crust
serve as a museum of earlier life. If evolution is indeed true, our
investigation should unearth fossils that show a steady progression of
life forms linking, for example, guppies and sharks, finches and
eagles, and apes and humans.
You severly overestimate how likely it is that an organism gets
fossilized
We would expect that the oldest and deepest layers of fossils would
contain the earliest, most primitive forms of life. As we search
through younger, shallower layers, we would expect to find a gradual
transition of the more primitive life forms into more complex ones. We
would also expect that fossils of new life forms would not appear
suddenly, but would show gradual changes or transitions.
Which is exactly what we find.
Evolutionists claim, for example, that fish evolved into amphibians.
So, we can expect to find transitional forms illustrating the gradual
transition of fins into feet and legs, among other changes. Since the
transition from fish to amphibian would have required many millions of
years (during which time many millions, even billions, of the
transitional forms must have lived) fossils of many of these
transitional forms should be discovered.
I have news for you. EVERY species that has ever existed is a
transitional form. The term 'species' only has meaning when you are
talking about a single point in time, looking at species that co-exist
at that time. Looking at a timeline of evolution and trying to tell one
species from another in the same lineage is like looking at a color
spectrum and trying to tell exactly where orange stops and yellow
begins.
If reptiles turned into birds, as is claimed, then we should also
expect to find fossils with gradual extending of the front feet of the
reptile into the form of wings like a bird, along with the reptile's
leathery skin transforming into feathers.
Ever hear of archaeopteryx?
The fossil record ought to
reveal many millions of transitional, intermediate life forms. They
should fill museum collections.
Fossilization is a very rare event.
The fact that many people believe evolution is true is not enough to
prove it.
That is the ONLY true thing that you have said so far about evolution.
The fact that some creatures show similarities with other
creatures is insufficient to prove that they evolved from one another.
If evolution is accurate, it must be supported by fossils,
Which it is.
a very old earth,
ditto
and the laws of probability.
and again, ditto.
We will return to these three proofs in the coming chapters.
Creative Alternative
The only other credible explanation for life is that it was
intentionally designed and created.
Who says that's the only other explanation? Even if you were to somehow
disprove evolution, that would not automatically prove creationism.
Just looking at the layout of the earth, planets, and cosmos causes some
people to be convinced that a Designer must exist.
Why? There is nothing there that can't be explained by the blind and
mindless laws of physics.
Researching the intricacies of human biological
life, our genetic code and internal systems persuades thinkers that
it's impossible for these to have originated by chance.
Why exactly?
Examining the
claims and evidence for evolution convinces many individuals that there
must be a better explanation.
Many individuals who approched evolution with the preconcieved notion
that it was wrong
The Christian view is that God both intentionally planned and produced
the universe and all forms of life.
Yeah? So what? You think Christianity is the only religion in the
world?
Many scientists, non-Christian
thinkers, and those of other philosophies also agree. Christian views
about creation, and many other subjects, are found in the book called
the Bible. Creation is primarily explained in Genesis, at the very
beginning of the Bible.
Is this the book that says that bats are birds and that insects have
four legs? Yeah. Let me hurry up and take seriously anything it says.
For the sake of those not familiar with Genesis, a brief overview
reveals God first creating the earth, followed by originating the
plants, creating the sun and stars, and then the animals.
He created plants THEN the sun? You call that an 'intelligent'
designer?
God's ultimate creative accomplishment was humankind.
So say the humans who wrote the bible.
Genesis says little
about how God created the universe, except that it happened suddenly
and intentionally. God's design and initiation of the universe is
often called special creation.
Genesis describes God having a close friendship with Adam and Eve, the
very first created people. Adam and Eve had three children, and their
community grew rapidly. Genesis chapter 5 describes several generations
of people before a special man named Noah was born.
And how did thier community 'grow' rapidly when everyone there wer
member of the immediate family? Did someone have sex with thier sister?
Trouble was growing on earth, for people were ignoring God and treating
one another cruelly. God decided to obliterate life and start over
again. He chose Noah to build an ark (a giant boat) and fill it with a
male and female of every type of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal.
Ok, this is confusing. Why did he bother to save anything? Why not just
create humans and animals all over again. And how did millions of
animal species fit on the boat? What did they eat? How did the plants
survive? How did freshwater fish survive when the oceans spilled over
into the lakes and streams? How did saltwater fish survive with the
oceans diluted with all that rainwater?
God caused a flood of water to cover the entire earth, rising above
even the highest mountains.
Ignoring the fact that that much water doesn't even exist on earth.
All animal life on the planet perished.
You worship an evil, murdering monster.
But Noah, his family, and the animals were safe in the ark. After a year,
the water had subsided and dry land prevailed. Noah opened the ark and
released the animals to replenish the earth with life.
How did he get animals like kangaroos and koalas? And how did they get
back to Austrailia?
As we will see later, considerable scientific and historical evidence
supports the events described in Genesis.
THAT I would love to see.
Creation Completed
Above, we identified each unique variety of life as a basic type.
You invented the label 'basic type' but never said what it actually
meant.
The first two chapters of Genesis describe God's creation of each basic
type of plant and animal. It emphasizes that each basic type was
designed to reproduce itself. The minor changes that have occurred in
living things since creation have been limited to changes within
particular basic types.
Special creation does not eliminate the possibility of varieties
occurring within basic types. Each was created with a large enough pool
of genes to give rise to all sorts of varieties within that particular
basic type.
How did that large pool of genes survive Noah's bottleneck?
Humans represent a basic type. There are about six billion humans in
the world today. Except for identical twins, no two humans are exactly
alike. None have the exact same gene combination. Yet we are all still
distinctly human.
The situation with dogs is similar. All dogs are variations within that
basic type. Whether a little Chihuahua or a German Shepherd, a beagle
or a bulldog, all dogs have the same basic gene pool that makes them
distinctly dogs. Humans, of course, have bred dogs to create special
breeds. But they are all still dogs.
This is one of the points at which evolution and creation stand in
complete opposition. Evolution holds that transformation takes place
from one basic type into another. Creation holds that variations within
basic types are possible, but that no transformation into new species
has occurred.
Transformation into new species has been OBSERVED. Do you even know
what the word 'species' means?
<Remaining text snipped because I'm fucking bored with this *****>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
16 Aug 2005 05:45:48 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Darwin's Demise
http://www.darwinsdemise.com
Why evolution can't take the heat!
[...]
Darwin was initially praised by some as a marvelous thinker. His
evolutionary approach impacted many fields, including biology,
astronomy,
Geology, paleontology, genetics, and many others.
ethics, religion, psychology, and philosophy.
In other words... it also frightens and inspires the hand-wavers.
[...] Evolution, as it is commonly understood today, depends upon
four factors. Evolutionists (people who have confidence in the
theory of evolution) explain them in this way:
1. Spontaneous generation.
Liar. Spontaneous generation is an improper and discarded terminology.
Abiogenesis describes the creation of life from non-life and it is not
part of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is a part of Naturalism, not
Evolution.
[...]
Breeding and artificial selection can accomplish only limited
results. For example, an experiment was performed in France to increase
the sugar content in table beets. In the beginning, the beets consisted
of 6% sugar. After years of artificial selection, the sugar content
increased to 17%. However, continued artificial selection did not
succeed in further increasing the sugar content.
So what? Even natural selection does not produce any species of
three-eyed mammals. Selective breeding is similarly limited by deeply
engrained (ancient) genetic characteristics.
2. The creature remains the same basic type. Even with intense
breeding and artificial selection, no fundamental change occurs in the
creature. Scientific experiments can create horses with shorter hair,
chickens that lay more eggs, and corn with higher protein content. But
in each situation, limits are reached. The breeders still ended up with
the same basic types of horses, chickens, and corn they had in the
beginning.
Fruit flies remain fruit flies. Well yeah. A hundred years of selective
breeding is not going to overcome the previous hundreds of millions of
years.
3. Breeding and artificial selection often reduce survivability.
Where modifications are made, the creature is usually weaker. It does
not compete well with the original type.
As measured how? A fighting dog can tear a wolf to shreds. Natural
selecton has optimized the wolf to live in the wild. Selective breeding
by humans does not optimize dogs to live in the wild.
[...] we are left with looking for indirect evidence of evolution.
This evidence can come from three main sources:
=B7 Probability. Spontaneous generation and random mutations are
events for which we can estimate the probabilities of them happening.
Liar. First this is not a topic of evolution. Second we do not yet know
how to calculate the probabilities related to abiogenesis.
[...]
=B7 Earth Age. Since evolution demands millions of years, determining
the true age of our planet is also essential.
For the dunces who still cling to the 6000 year old Biblical model?
[...]
=B7 The Fossil Record. The fossil layers of the earth's outer crust
serve as a museum of earlier life. If evolution is indeed true, our
investigation should unearth fossils that show a steady progression of
life forms linking, for example, guppies and sharks, finches and
eagles, and apes and humans.
False. The fossil record will never fill all the gaps demanded by the
creationists. Fossilization is a rare process which does not capture
rare specimens. Fossilization captures a "snapshot" of the dominant
species -- not the rare species which are under pressure to evolve or
perish. The population ratios between these two are astounding. How
many European Starlings are in the world? Now, how many Ivory-billed
woodpeckers?
[...]
Creative Alternative
The only other credible explanation for life is that it was
intentionally designed and created. Just looking at the layout of the
earth, planets, and cosmos causes some people to be convinced that a
Designer must exist.
Look at the orderly sand on a beach. Surely God visits every night with
a rake.
[...]
Genesis describes God having a close friendship with Adam and Eve, the
very first created people. Adam and Eve had three children, and their
community grew rapidly. Genesis chapter 5 describes several generations
of people before a special man named Noah was born.
But the story of Noah fell apart when it was noticed that fossils are
not found in the mixed-up mess that would result from a global flood.
Fossils are found in orderly layers formed from the slow deposit of
sediment.
[...]
People who believe that life was designed and created are often known
as "creationists." Many Christians and believers in various
religions would be known as creationists. Furthermore, numerous
scientists looking at the evidence also hold the creation account as
the best explanation for life. Some of the more famous "creationist
scientists" include: [...]
You provide a list of scientists mostly from prior centuries, which
only shows the pervasive influence of religion and creationist dogma
before Darwin.
[...]
A person can try to overcome their own bias by taking these steps:
=B7 Start by clarifying in your mind what it is you believe about this
subject. From whom did you get these ideas? What questions do you have
about them today?
Why not simply start by reading Darwin's famous "Origin of Species?" It
remains very readable and clearly expresses Darwin's ideas.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
15 Aug 2005 10:30:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Darwin's Demise
http://www.darwinsdemise.com
[...]
We would also expect that fossils of new life forms would not appear
suddenly, but would show gradual changes or transitions.
False. The fossil record is only going to capture the successful
species. A successful species may consist of a population in the
millions or billions while an unsuccessful species may number a few
thousand or even a few hundred. The rare animals, the unsuccessful
species will probably never appear in the fossil record. Also the rarer
an animal is the more likely it is for evolution to be accelerated
because the gene pool is tiny and easily influenced. On the other hand
the gene pool of the successful species is huge and stagnant.
Fossils appear and disappear suddenly because that is exactly how
animal populations actually work. Rabbits may appear in Australia and
overrun the land with their vast numbers, but then some time later a
plague or disaster wipes them all out. They appear suddenly in the
fossil record and then they vanish.
[...]
The situation with dogs is similar. All dogs are variations within that
basic type. Whether a little Chihuahua or a German Shepherd, a beagle
or a bulldog, all dogs have the same basic gene pool that makes them
distinctly dogs. Humans, of course, have bred dogs to create special
breeds. But they are all still dogs.
In only some thousands of years of selective breeding -- look at the
dog.
It is clear that small changes do accumulate significantly in a
geologically insignificant period of time. A large roaming animal could
be quickly transformed into a small burrower.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roneal" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
16 Aug 2005 09:01:37 AM |
|
|
Every time I read an attack on Darwin, it seems to be framed in a religious
context. And in addition, framed by the individual's own interpretation of
the Bible.
Darwin did not answer the "Who" or "Why" but rather the "How".
When there appears to be conflict between Science and Religion, then the
interpretation given to the religious argument may need to be re-examined.
RO
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1124147247.163415.316500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Darwin's Demise
http://www.darwinsdemise.com
Why evolution can't take the heat!
By Nicholas Comninellis, MD
Co-authored with Joe White, President of Kanakuk Kamps.
Published by MasterBooks, 2001. Paperback, 196 pages.
Finally, an honest critique of the scientific evidence for both
evolution and creation. This hard-hitting, cutting-edge book challenges
conventional teaching with provocative, evidence-based answers to some
of the greatest questions of all time: Did life begin as a random
accident? Were living creatures actually designed? How old in fact is
the earth? Are our profs and teachers misleading us? Was Darwin right
about evolution?
Chapter One
How Did Life Begin?
This is a vast question. But is it really important today? Absolutely.
Knowing the truth about our origins is essential because it affects our
attitudes toward ourselves and the way we treat other people. For
example, if we are indeed the end result of billions of years worth of
chance biochemical reactions, as evolutionary theory tries to explain,
then human nature, and even the value of human life, is quite different
than if we are actually the result of an intelligent Creator who
designed us.
The truth about our origin also has an impact on our concept of God,
even our interaction with God. If humans are actually the accidental
by-product of biological mutations, it's a count against there
actually being any superhuman power. But if we're the craftsmanship
of a God who personally planned and designed humans and other
creatures, then this is someone we may want to know more about.
Sorting out answers to the truth of our origins involves some
fascinating work, and touches on the fields of cosmology (study of the
universe), chemistry, physics, statistics, biology, genetics,
paleontology, and archeology. Finding the truth also involves a certain
amount of objectivity and emotional insulation, for some people's
strongest passions are kindled by this issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Darwin Defined
For starters, let's be clear about what we mean by evolution. Prior
to the mid-1800s, most people on earth believed that all living things
- each type of animal, plant, and microorganism - were directly
created by God, and had changed very little, if any, since that time.
With few exceptions, most of the great scientists of the 17th and 18th
centuries who actually invented the many disciplines that scientists
practice today, believed that humans and all other creatures had been
designed by a supernatural Creator.
Then in 1859 Charles Darwin published his book Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection, also entitled The Preservation of Favored
Races in the Struggle for Life or Origin of the Species, for short.
Darwin impressed the world with the proposal that all life began from a
single cell, and that over millions of years living creatures have
continually changed and adapted, becoming more complex and varied.
Darwin: A Closer Look
Charles Darwin's father and grandfather were physicians, and Charles
initially sought to follow in their footsteps. In spite of being a
less-than-sterling student, he entered Cambridge University in 1828,
and eventually graduated with a degree in theology. After Cambridge,
Darwin planned to enter the ministry somewhere in the English
countryside.
One day he received a letter from Captain Fitzroy, a decorated seaman
who commanded the sailing vessel Beagle. Darwin was offered the
position of naturalist on an upcoming five-year, round-the-world ocean
voyage. He accepted. During the voyage, he made copious notes of his
observations, especially of the varieties within species. In
particular, Darwin noticed as many as 13 varieties of finches, a small
tropical bird.
Years after returning from the Beagle voyage, Darwin began to form his
philosophy of origins. He suggested that varieties within species (such
as finches) occurred spontaneously. In the struggle to survive in a
harsh world, some varieties were better suited than others. Those who
were superior lived and reproduced, while those who were weaker died
off. He proposed that this process of spontaneous variation and
"survival of the fittest" continued over millions of years, and
resulted in the tremendous varieties of life we find today.
Darwin was initially praised by some as a marvelous thinker. His
evolutionary approach impacted many fields, including biology,
astronomy, ethics, religion, psychology, and philosophy. In stark
contrast to his theological training, Darwin later demonstrated
enormous contempt for anything Christian. He wrote:
"The Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the
earth, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus,
or the beliefs of any barbarian. The New Testament is a damnable
doctrine. [I can] hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to
be true."
The world rapidly accepted Darwin as an authority and adopted his
explanation as fact. Within 50 years, most of the scientific community,
and indeed much of the western world, had confidence in his leading.
Darwin's theory of evolution today remains the most widely held
explanation for the origin of life. In short, it says simply that all
living things arose randomly from an inorganic, inanimate world. In
this theory, all living things are interrelated. Humans and apes, for
example, are believed to have begun from a single animal five to twenty
million years ago. Likewise, primates (which include men and apes) are
believed to have begun from a single animal approximately seventy-five
million years ago.
Similar connections are imagined throughout the entire animal and plant
kingdoms. The study of these hypothetical relationships is called
phylogeny, and they can be illustrated by a so-called phylogenetic
tree.
Evolution, as it is commonly understood today, depends upon four
factors. Evolutionists (people who have confidence in the theory of
evolution) explain them in this way:
1. Spontaneous generation. This means that life arose from inanimate
(dead) material. In a pond or other moist environment (referred to as
the pre-biotic soup), a perfect combination of carbon-based molecules
happened to be present at the same instant. Denying all scientific
logic, a DNA code, nucleus, cell wall, and energy-generating apparatus
- the minimum requirements for a living cell - were all somehow
present, each having randomly come together on its own. This first cell
reproduced itself and the first life was off to a start.
2. Random mutation. Minor changes in the DNA code are thought to
occur spontaneously within a creature. Most of these are attributed to
"accidents" that happen when the creature's genetic code is
copied at the time of reproduction. Outside radiation and chemicals are
also thought to play a role.
The result of these random mutations is a new creature, slightly
different from the first. Most importantly, it will either be better or
less well prepared to live in its environment. Most mutations are
harmful to a creature. So, a high number would be necessary to increase
the chances of a positive mutation taking place.
3. Natural selection. Darwin realized that many more creatures were
born than actually survived well. He observed a struggle for existence
in which the stronger creatures survived and the weaker ones died off.
This process is called natural selection.
Any random mutation that results in a "weaker" creature,
evolutionists reason, would cause the early elimination of that plant
or animal. By contrast, any random mutation which increased the
strength or fertility of a plant or animal would give it an advantage
in the struggle for existence.
4. Time. Random mutations do not occur very often, and most
mutations are damaging. Yet many positive mutations are necessary to
give rise to a new creature. What is needed to make the process work is
time, and lots of it.
The accumulation of many small but favorable mutations over time is
evolution's explanation for converting a microscopic bacterial cell
into a human being. Yet even over many millions of years, as explained
later, such a process would never have enough time to occur.
Tiny Changes Don't Count
It's also important to point out what is not considered to be
evolution. Evolution does not refer to changes or adaptations within a
particular basic type of plant or animal. Rather, evolution -
sometimes specified as "macroevolution" - refers to one basic
type transforming into another. Textbooks often describe adaptations
that have taken place in biology - small changes within certain
species. This process of adaptation is sometimes called
"microevolution." This is an actual occurrence - a fact on which
all scientists agree. A common error is made in scientific reasoning,
unfortunately, when these adaptations (or microevolution) are used to
assume that "macroevolution" (evolution from one basic type of
living creature into another) also takes place.
Each basic type of living creature has its own unique gene pool or
genetic code. Basic types of animals are fairly readily recognized, and
include the dog/wolf type, the elephant type, the chimpanzee type, the
rat type, and so forth.
All humans belong to the basic "human" type. Tiny variations may
occur within our type, such as differences in eye color, hair
distribution, and skin color in the case of humans. In the case of
corn, varieties seem to have arisen over the years, including starch
corn, flint corn, sweet corn, pod corn, popcorn, and dent corn.
Macroevolution does not refer to such limited changes, changes which do
not lead to a new basic type of plant or animal.
What the theory of evolution does say is that dogs and cats arose from
a common ancestor; an ancestor that over time diversified itself into
mammals of different basic types. The theory also postulates that
sparrows, finches, parrots, and blackbirds all came from a common
forefather, such as an ancestral reptile; one who through the ages
transformed itself into new basic types.
Some will refer to the subtle changes within basic types (for example,
eye color among humans) as evidence of evolution in progress, that many
such tiny changes could eventually lead to a new basic type. The
critical evidence for evolution, however, lies not in proving tiny
changes, but in proving the transformation of one basic type into
another.
Breeding and Artificial Selection Don't Count
Sometimes evolutionists point to artificial selection of plants and
breeding of animals as evidence for evolution. They say that such
breeding is simply evolution in fast motion, helped along by human
decision-makers. Anyone with experience in breeding plants or animals,
however, quickly comes to three conclusions:
1. Breeding and artificial selection can accomplish only limited
results. For example, an experiment was performed in France to increase
the sugar content in table beets. In the beginning, the beets consisted
of 6% sugar. After years of artificial selection, the sugar content
increased to 17%. However, continued artificial selection did not
succeed in further increasing the sugar content.
2. The creature remains the same basic type. Even with intense
breeding and artificial selection, no fundamental change occurs in the
creature. Scientific experiments can create horses with shorter hair,
chickens that lay more eggs, and corn with higher protein content. But
in each situation, limits are reached. The breeders still ended up with
the same basic types of horses, chickens, and corn they had in the
beginning.
3. Breeding and artificial selection often reduce survivability.
Where modifications are made, the creature is usually weaker. It does
not compete well with the original type. Falconer explains this well:
"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best
demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that
have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a
reduction of fitness, for life under natural conditions, and only the
fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural
conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."
Breeding and artificial selection result in variations in existing
traits only, and these are with the assistance of human genius. These
are completely insufficient to prove evolution as a "natural" and
spontaneous process since nothing new or complex arises, and the change
accomplished is always extremely limited.
No matter what combinations may occur, the human basic type always
remains human, and the dog basic type never ceases to be dog. In fact,
breeding and artificial selection may actually demonstrate the maximum
limits of evolution. The most modified creatures survive only because
they are kept where they have ample food, and are protected from
natural enemies.
The Evidence Please
To prove whether or not a theory is true requires some honest
investigation. The very best evidence for the truth of a theory is to
observe the subject in action. Unfortunately, it is impossible to turn
back time and take notes on the early development of life on our
planet.
The next best evidence would come from constructing an experiment to
test whether or not evolution seems to be currently happening, or is
even a possibility. However, evolution is said to only take place over
millions of years, making such an experiment impossible to undertake!
Lacking the above options, we are left with looking for indirect
evidence of evolution. This evidence can come from three main sources:
· Probability. Spontaneous generation and random mutations are
events for which we can estimate the probabilities of them happening.
Natural selection can also be statistically analyzed. If evolution is
indeed true, we should find that the mathematical probability is
reasonable. In today's scientific research, most investigations
demand that the odds of being correct be at least 95%. Similarly, we
would expect the mathematical odds favoring evolution to be quite good.
· Earth Age. Since evolution demands millions of years, determining
the true age of our planet is also essential. Our investigation should
also confirm that the earth is extremely old, on the order of billions
of years. Otherwise, there simply would not be enough time sufficient
for evolution to take place. We should also discover that throughout
the earth's long life, conditions were appropriate for life to
flourish. The air temperature, oxygen concentration, sunlight, and so
on were suitable to support living things.
· The Fossil Record. The fossil layers of the earth's outer crust
serve as a museum of earlier life. If evolution is indeed true, our
investigation should unearth fossils that show a steady progression of
life forms linking, for example, guppies and sharks, finches and
eagles, and apes and humans.
We would expect that the oldest and deepest layers of fossils would
contain the earliest, most primitive forms of life. As we search
through younger, shallower layers, we would expect to find a gradual
transition of the more primitive life forms into more complex ones. We
would also expect that fossils of new life forms would not appear
suddenly, but would show gradual changes or transitions.
Evolutionists claim, for example, that fish evolved into amphibians.
So, we can expect to find transitional forms illustrating the gradual
transition of fins into feet and legs, among other changes. Since the
transition from fish to amphibian would have required many millions of
years (during which time many millions, even billions, of the
transitional forms must have lived) fossils of many of these
transitional forms should be discovered.
If reptiles turned into birds, as is claimed, then we should also
expect to find fossils with gradual extending of the front feet of the
reptile into the form of wings like a bird, along with the reptile's
leathery skin transforming into feathers. The fossil record ought to
reveal many millions of transitional, intermediate life forms. They
should fill museum collections.
The fact that many people believe evolution is true is not enough to
prove it. The fact that some creatures show similarities with other
creatures is insufficient to prove that they evolved from one another.
If evolution is accurate, it must be supported by fossils, a very old
earth, and the laws of probability. We will return to these three
proofs in the coming chapters.
Creative Alternative
The only other credible explanation for life is that it was
intentionally designed and created. Just looking at the layout of the
earth, planets, and cosmos causes some people to be convinced that a
Designer must exist. Researching the intricacies of human biological
life, our genetic code and internal systems persuades thinkers that
it's impossible for these to have originated by chance. Examining the
claims and evidence for evolution convinces many individuals that there
must be a better explanation.
The Christian view is that God both intentionally planned and produced
the universe and all forms of life. Many scientists, non-Christian
thinkers, and those of other philosophies also agree. Christian views
about creation, and many other subjects, are found in the book called
the Bible. Creation is primarily explained in Genesis, at the very
beginning of the Bible.
For the sake of those not familiar with Genesis, a brief overview
reveals God first creating the earth, followed by originating the
plants, creating the sun and stars, and then the animals. God's
ultimate creative accomplishment was humankind. Genesis says little
about how God created the universe, except that it happened suddenly
and intentionally. God's design and initiation of the universe is
often called special creation.
Genesis describes God having a close friendship with Adam and Eve, the
very first created people. Adam and Eve had three children, and their
community grew rapidly. Genesis chapter 5 describes several generations
of people before a special man named Noah was born.
Trouble was growing on earth, for people were ignoring God and treating
one another cruelly. God decided to obliterate life and start over
again. He chose Noah to build an ark (a giant boat) and fill it with a
male and female of every type of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal.
God caused a flood of water to cover the entire earth, rising above
even the highest mountains. All animal life on the planet perished. But
Noah, his family, and the animals were safe in the ark. After a year,
the water had subsided and dry land prevailed. Noah opened the ark and
released the animals to replenish the earth with life.
As we will see later, considerable scientific and historical evidence
supports the events described in Genesis.
Creation Completed
Above, we identified each unique variety of life as a basic type. The
first two chapters of Genesis describe God's creation of each basic
type of plant and animal. It emphasizes that each basic type was
designed to reproduce itself. The minor changes that have occurred in
living things since creation have been limited to changes within
particular basic types.
Special creation does not eliminate the possibility of varieties
occurring within basic types. Each was created with a large enough pool
of genes to give rise to all sorts of varieties within that particular
basic type.
Humans represent a basic type. There are about six billion humans in
the world today. Except for identical twins, no two humans are exactly
alike. None have the exact same gene combination. Yet we are all still
distinctly human.
The situation with dogs is similar. All dogs are variations within that
basic type. Whether a little Chihuahua or a German Shepherd, a beagle
or a bulldog, all dogs have the same basic gene pool that makes them
distinctly dogs. Humans, of course, have bred dogs to create special
breeds. But they are all still dogs.
This is one of the points at which evolution and creation stand in
complete opposition. Evolution holds that transformation takes place
from one basic type into another. Creation holds that variations within
basic types are possible, but that no transformation into new species
has occurred. Instead, all basic types that ever existed - dinosaurs,
bacteria, plants, mammals - were created at the beginning of time,
and since then no new kinds have come into being. This is consistent
with what the Bible says about creation being finished on the sixth
day, as recorded in Genesis 2:2.
Impressive Adherents
People who believe that life was designed and created are often known
as "creationists." Many Christians and believers in various
religions would be known as creationists. Furthermore, numerous
scientists looking at the evidence also hold the creation account as
the best explanation for life. Some of the more famous "creationist
scientists" include:
Biology:
Pasteur - Developed vaccinations and the science of bacteriology
Mendel - Founded the modern science of genetics
Physics:
Newton - Discovered the law of gravity; invented the reflecting
telescope
Genetics:
Mendel - Founded the modern science of genetics
Astronomy:
Copernicus - Discovered the orbit of the planets
Electronics:
Morse - Invented the telegraph
Medicine:
Lister - Developed the science of antiseptic surgery
Chemistry:
Boyle - Developed the sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics
Davy - Developed the science of thermokinetics
The number of today's scientists who adhere to creation is also
impressive. Rejecting the idea of particles-to-people evolution, they
are more convinced by the arguments for an orderly, intentionally
planned universe. Refusing the concept that life simply began by
chance, they see life as telling us something about the Creator
himself.
The Evidence Please
As in the case of evolution, the very best evidence for creation would
come from actually being present and observing the creation of the
universe in action. Lacking this, the next best evidence would come
from studying creation in action today, proving that it is
scientifically possible. Scientists continue to carefully study life.
However, in recorded history no new life forms have been discovered.
The Genesis account, furthermore, says that creation of life forms was
completed back at the beginning of time.
Without evidence like that just described, we are left with looking for
indirect signs of creation. Parallel to evolution, we can look at
evidence from the same three main sources:
· Probability. Since life is so unique and complex, we should find
that the mathematical probability of it occurring spontaneously is
very, very low.
· Earth Age. The age of the earth described in the Bible is
essentially very young; on the order of 6,000-10,000 years. Since all
life was created simultaneously, a longer time frame is unnecessary to
explain its existence. Our scientific findings regarding earth's age
should show a young planet.
· The Fossil Record. If creation is true, we'd expect to find a
sudden, explosive appearance in the fossil record of highly complex
forms of life. We would predict that fossils of all of the major types
of plants and animals would appear abruptly. We also expect to find no
sign of transitional forms linking one basic type to another in the
fossil record.
We would anticipate finding fossilized remains of mice, lizards, cats,
dogs, cows, elephants, horses, bats, dinosaurs, sharks, monkeys, apes,
and men. Each basic type from its earliest fossils would be fully
developed and possess the characteristics that set it apart from all
others.
Either creation is true or evolution is true. No other possible
explanation for life exists. The fact that some people believe in
creation or evolution is not enough to prove that one or the other is
correct. The evidence from fossils, the age of the earth, and the laws
of probability is essential.
Watch Your Bias
Searching out honest answers to big questions is admirable. It's also
difficult. One of the major obstacles comes from each person's bias.
Bias means our tendency to find what we first decide we want to find,
rather than what's actually there. It means our inclination to see
what we really desire to see, rather than seeing what actually exists.
People are prone to let their individual bias get in the way of logical
thinking. We tend to wrongly believe, for example, that whites make for
better students, and blacks for better athletes. We unjustly hold that
men should be doctors and women should be nurses. We undeservingly view
young people as less trustworthy than those who have gray hair. Bias
keeps us from living our lives consistent with the actual truth. It
causes you and me to become shortsighted and to miss opportunities.
Investigating ideas of creation and evolution tends to magnify
people's bias even more sharply. Some individuals don't want to be
confronted with a truth that may force them to rethink their entire
perspective on God, history, science, and the value of human life. It
seems easier to just dig in their heels, hanging on to ideas that have
little support, rather than to look at the facts and reconsider.
But denying reality has its costs. Gravity will make you fall, even if
you don't believe it exists. Electricity can shock you, even though
you can't see it. Grasping untrue ideas about origins can cause you
to totally miss some of the most remarkable aspects of life.
A person can try to overcome their own bias by taking these steps:
· Start by clarifying in your mind what it is you believe about this
subject. From whom did you get these ideas? What questions do you have
about them today?
· Decide in advance that you'll reconsider the evidence, and not
let your previous ideas get in the way.
· Promise yourself that, if necessary, you'll change your views and
try to live consistently with the truth surrounding this subject.
Hallucinations consist of imagining things that don't really exist.
No one honestly wants to have hallucinations. Neither do we want to
fill our lives with unreal ideas. Let's find out the truth about
creation and evolution.
Summing Up
How did life begin? It's not an abstract question, for the truth
about our origins affects both our attitudes toward people and also our
interaction with the supernatural.
The popular answer is evolution, that humans and all other living
things are the result of spontaneous generation, random mutations,
natural selection, and millions of years worth of time. Popular as this
idea may be, evolution (if evolution is indeed true) must stand up to
several tests: the probability must be reasonable, the inhabitable
earth must be very old, and fossils must be found showing the
transition from one basic type into another.
The only other possible explanation for life is creation; that God
intentionally designed and produced all living things. For evidence,
we'd expect to find creatures so intricate they could not have arisen
on their own, a young planet consistent with the Bible's account of
creation, and a lack of fossils that clearly show transitions between
creatures.
The subject of evolution and creation is complicated by people's
tendency to see what they want to see, rather than seeing the facts as
they really are. By keeping our bias under control, however, we can
discover the real truth about how life began.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
16 Aug 2005 08:09:51 AM |
|
|
HHHHOOOOOOOAAAAAHHHH!
This book is awesome! It's so awesome it's tits! I've never read such a
thorough, enlightening scientific work in my entire life!
Check it out people...bask in the words of an MD who can barely tie his
own shoes without drooling on them first...sit back and chillax as the
President of a day camp zikkety-zacks his way through evolution on a
scientific basis!
Warning: This book is rated "R" for being fucking retarded.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
15 Aug 2005 07:03:38 PM |
|
|
In article <1124147247.163415.316500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Finally, an honest critique of the scientific evidence for both
evolution and creation. This hard-hitting, cutting-edge book challenges
conventional teaching with provocative, evidence-based answers to some
of the greatest questions of all time: Did life begin as a random
accident?
I see. So you're touting a new book with old lies that might have been
of interest around 40 years ago. How novel.
Were living creatures actually designed? How old in fact is
the earth?
Ooooh! Ooooh! I know! Ask me!!
Are our profs and teachers misleading us?
If you're talking about YOUR profs at Anal Roberts U and Bob Jones U,
the answer is clearly "Yes."
Was Darwin right about evolution?
So far as he was able to be in his day, yes.
Now go play with your tinker toys, little putz. You're slowing down real
work.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
15 Aug 2005 06:27:11 PM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2005 16:07:27 -0700, wrote:
Darwin's Demise
http://www.darwinsdemise.com
Why evolution can't take the heat!
By Nicholas Comninellis, MD
Co-authored with Joe White, President of Kanakuk Kamps.
Published by MasterBooks, 2001. Paperback, 196 pages.
Finally, an honest critique of the scientific evidence for both
evolution and creation. This hard-hitting, cutting-edge book challenges
conventional teaching with provocative, evidence-based answers to some
of the greatest questions of all time: Did life begin as a random
accident? Were living creatures actually designed? How old in fact is
the earth? Are our profs and teachers misleading us? Was Darwin right
about evolution?
Chapter One
How Did Life Begin?
This is a vast question. But is it really important today? Absolutely.
Knowing the truth about our origins is essential because it affects our
attitudes toward ourselves and the way we treat other people. For
example, if we are indeed the end result of billions of years worth of
chance biochemical reactions, as evolutionary theory tries to explain,
then human nature, and even the value of human life, is quite different
than if we are actually the result of an intelligent Creator who
designed us.
The truth about our origin also has an impact on our concept of God,
even our interaction with God. If humans are actually the accidental
by-product of biological mutations, it's a count against there
actually being any superhuman power. But if we're the craftsmanship
of a God who personally planned and designed humans and other
creatures, then this is someone we may want to know more about.
Sorting out answers to the truth of our origins involves some
fascinating work, and touches on the fields of cosmology (study of the
universe), chemistry, physics, statistics, biology, genetics,
paleontology, and archeology. Finding the truth also involves a certain
amount of objectivity and emotional insulation, for some people's
strongest passions are kindled by this issue.
Interesting that this moron quotes from the Bible only, and does not
consider Hindi Creation mythologies, Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime
myths, Inuit, Ancient Phonecian, Angient Egyptian, Norse, or
Ba-benzele pygmy creation mythologies. All of which predate the
Bible.
That's not science. That's religious bigotry in disguise....
<SNIP of religious bigotry dressed up as nothing much else at all>
--
Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat |
15 Aug 2005 06:53:50 PM |
|
|
Why are creationists such stupid liars?
Their religion is supposed to make them decent, honest people. They
are hardly an good advertisement for it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
