David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message

In alt.talk.creationism,

<5b127bc5.0308210640.3b991fa8@posting.google.com>:

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message

...

So apparently, Bethell not only doesn't know what a "verge" is,

even understand the Theory of Evolution he attempts to dispute.

Nonsense. Bethell was on the right track, Darwinian Evolution has
collapsed, at least scientifically though not in the realm of media
driven popular opinion ot classroom browbeating and brainwashing.

How has it collapsed?

Its' in the details that evolutionists seemingly do not wish to deal
with. The scientific facts falsify it. I posted this thread one such
scientific evidence supplied by Professor EJ Ambrose.

The fossil record fails to support evolution. It is a tale of abrupt
appearances of each morphological type followed by stasis throughout
its' existence in the fossil record, and even up to extant creatures.

Evolution also violates the principle that makes the 2nd Law, entropy,
true.

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message

In alt.talk.creationism,

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message

...

So apparently, Bethell not only doesn't know what a "verge" is, but

even understand the Theory of Evolution he attempts to dispute.

Nonsense. Bethell was on the right track, Darwinian Evolution has
collapsed, at least scientifically though not in the realm of media
driven popular opinion ot classroom browbeating and brainwashing. The

How has it collapsed?

Its' in the details that evolutionists seemingly do not wish to deal
with. The scientific facts falsify it. I posted this thread one such
scientific evidence supplied by Professor EJ Ambrose.

The fossil record fails to support evolution. It is a tale of abrupt
appearances of each morphological type followed by stasis throughout
its' existence in the fossil record, and even up to extant creatures.

Evolution also violates the principle that makes the 2nd Law, entropy,
true.

<ArtBiele@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5b127bc5.0308210640.3b991fa8@posting.google.com...

Nonsense. Bethell was on the right track, Darwinian Evolution has
collapsed, at least scientifically though not in the realm of media
driven popular opinion ot classroom browbeating and brainwashing.

You might want to tell the National Academy of Sciences. They apparently
missed the memo.
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/

I note that you didn't respond to any of the content of my post about
how these "misguided" scientists are able to artificially alter the
heredity of organisms.

Nor did you attempt any rebuttal to my assertion
that Bethell was misrepresenting the Theory of Evolution when he stated
that it was a "random" process.

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<LJJ0b.6043$_L7.2292363305@twister2.starband.net>...

"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030820105711.49711.qmail@web10808.mail.yahoo.com...

All



Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable
that there should be at least some evidence to show
that one kind of life turns into another kind. But the
gaps between different types of life found in the
fossil record, as well as the gaps between different
types of living things on earth today, still persist.

Also, it is revealing to see what has happened to
Darwin's long-accepted idea regarding the "survival of
the fittest." This he called "natural selection." That
is, he believed that nature "selected" the fittest
living things to survive. As these "fit" ones
supposedly acquired new features that worked to their
advantage, they slowly evolved. But the evidence of
the past 125 years shows that, while the fittest may
indeed survive, this does not explain how they
arrived. One lion may be fitter than another lion, but
that does not explain how he got to be a lion. And all
of his offspring will still be lions, not something
else.
Thus, in Harper's magazine, writer Tom Bethell
commented: "Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious
to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only
recently been recognized as such. . . . One organism
may indeed be 'fitter' than another . . . This, of
course, is not something which helps create the
organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there was
something very, very wrong with such an idea." Bethell
added: "As I see it the conclusion is pretty
staggering: Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the
verge of collapse."

What is the length of time in a "verge?

I ask this because Bethell apparently wrote that in 1976. I always
thought a "verge" was a short length of time, like any moment now.
Since that was written, scientists have spliced human genes into
bacteria to create new forms of life, they have cloned mammals, they
have deciphered much of the human genome, they have solved crimes
with DNA analysis, they have determined that birds are descendents of
some dinosaur lines, they have come to a greater understanding of the
evolution of human culture, they have found more transitional
species, etc., etc., etc.

Quote from Tom Bethell, correspondent for the American Spectator,
"The most important claim by evolutionists is that all of life on
earth evolved over a long period as a result of a series of random
events." http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/bethell.html

So apparently, Bethell not only doesn't know what a "verge" is, but
doesn't even understand the Theory of Evolution he attempts to
dispute.

Nonsense. Bethell was on the right track, Darwinian Evolution has
collapsed, at least scientifically though not in the realm of media
driven popular opinion ot classroom browbeating and brainwashing. The
forced teaching of only Evolutionism in the classroom has sunk so low
and dirty that it qualifies as child abuse.

BTW, Bethell correctly concludes in the article you quoted:

"It is predictable that this topic will become much more heated in the
years ahead. The Darwinians are not going to give up easily because
what is at stake for them (or a good many of them) is not scientific
rigor but a philosophic worldviewan idealogy. This is materialism,

sometimes called naturalism. Its central tenet is that the universe
consists of nothing but atoms and molecules in motion. Consciousness

itself is nothing more than a peculiar vibration of electrons, in this
view. Professor Philip Johnson has done a good job of pointing out
that this ideology is the real driving force behind evolution. In

fact, the theory of evolution is nothing more than a deduction from
this philosophy. Organisms really do exist in this world, and how else
could they have arrived here, except by evolution, if all other
methods of creation are ruled out a priori?"

Dr. Guiseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics at the University of
Peruvia, former director of the Genetics Institute of the University
of
Palermo, Senior Editor of the Biology Forum, and co-author and
paleontologist Dr. R. Fondi (Dopo Darwin, 1980) stated that:
"The result we believe must be striven for can therefore only be the
following: Biology will receive no advantage from following the
teachings of Lamarck, Darwin, and the modern hyper-Darwinists;
Indeed, it must as quickly as possible leave the narrow straits and
blind alleys of the evolutionistic myths and resume its certain
journey along the open and illuminated paths of tradition."

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:<qnm9kvgc9m9vk3i1589ilaalct3v84ucgt@4ax.com>...

In alt.talk.creationism,

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<LJJ0b.6043$_L7.2292363305@twister2.starband.net>...

...

So apparently, Bethell not only doesn't know what a "verge" is,
but doesn't even understand the Theory of Evolution he attempts to
dispute.

Nonsense. Bethell was on the right track, Darwinian Evolution has
collapsed, at least scientifically though not in the realm of media
driven popular opinion ot classroom browbeating and brainwashing.
The

How has it collapsed?

Its' in the details that evolutionists seemingly do not wish to deal
with. The scientific facts falsify it. I posted this thread one such
scientific evidence supplied by Professor EJ Ambrose.

The fossil record fails to support evolution. It is a tale of abrupt
appearances of each morphological type followed by stasis throughout
its' existence in the fossil record, and even up to extant creatures.

Evolution also violates the principle that makes the 2nd Law, entropy,
true.

The 2nd Law is simply the result of a greater principle of Physics:
"Massive amounts of Molecules, atoms, atomic particles, etc., tend
over time to flow (i.e. rearrange themselves) from states (i.e.
arrangements) of lower probability to states of ever increasing
probability.

This principle not only makes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics TRUE, it
applies equally to Information Theory because conveyance of
information is dependant on molecular arrangements.

Application of the above principle to energy flow is often what is
meant, in schools, by the 2nd Law. That is, the flow of molecular
states in contact will flow from states of energy differential to the
much more probable states of energy equilibrium. When energy
equilibrium is reached, work can no longer be done.

However, for states of configuration of molecules, the principle of
molecular flow will also always proceed from states of lower
probability to states of ever increasing probability.

This is because the 2nd Law is a consequence of the behavior of large
collections of molecules which behave in accordance with the laws of
probability. The molecules logically will flow over time from low
probability states to higher probability states. If there were many
more `orderly' states that molecules can arrange themselves in than
there were `disorderly' states for the molecules to arrange themselves
into, then the natural flow would be from states of disorder to states
of order. If this were true and we also define "Orderly" as performing
functions needed for the origin of life and for the origin species,
then Evolution could be possible.

For example, when a large vase falls and smashes onto a stone floor,
it would produce little tea cups if the probability of the molecules
arranging themselves into cups was much higher as compared to any
other possible configurations. But the laws of physics being what they

are, The vase breaks up into many pieces of varying sizes and shapes
that will be meaningless in terms of performing a useful function for
human beings. The molecules of the vase have "naturally" undergone a
change in arrangement from a specified complexity that performed a
function for humans to a more probable disordered chaotic functionless
arrangement.

Evolutionists believe that inanimate matter must have, through natural
processes only, spontaneously generated the first lifeform, and that
over time, the offspring of this first lifeform must have undergone

numerous mutations in such manner as to have spontaneously generated
new information in the RNA/DNA that provided new classes of proteins
and instructions needed to originate every type of lifeform that has
ever existed on this planet. Leading evolutionists agree that each

step necessary for the spontaneous generation of life must be such
that the molecular flow must run from states of lower probability to
molecular states of ever higher probability. This must also be true
for the spontaneous generation of new classes of proteins and the
injection of new coded information into the DNA, as would be necessary
to bring about new evolved body plans (i.e. creature types).

Distinguished scientist and expert on origins, A.E. Wilder-Smith
stated:
"What is the difference between a stick, which is dead, and an
orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has
teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to
increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy,..."
Teleonomy is the information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy
involves the concept of something having a design and a purpose.
Teleonomy can use matter and energy to produce order and specified
complexity. It is Creation's ordering principle. Evolutionists have
failed
to discern any such ordering principle for macro-evolution, a major
and critical deficiency with evolution. As Dr. A.E, Wilder-Smith
points
out, this ordering principle does not reside in matter itself, matter
is
not creative.
"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the
workings
of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical
workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not
reside in the atoms or the molecules"

Indeed, in their efforts to demonstrate scientifically that Evolution,
and its necessary parent: "The Spontaneous Generation of Life", both
result from a reasonable flow of molecules from states of lower
probability to states of ever increasing, they have produced
scientific results that demonstrate the opposite.

The Theory of Evolution demands that since the very earliest life, new
classes of proteins must have come into existence and new instructions
must be continually encoded into DNA to produce novel physical
features, organs, traits that we know have come to exist.

Hubert Yockey, in 1978, did theoretical calculations to determine the
information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity. Mr.
Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons.
His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a
protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65.

Such a probability is certainly very damaging to any possibility of
macro-evolution being at all plausible. To counter this, a scientist

with excellent mathematical skills, Mr. Ken Dill, using different
assumptions than Yockey, arrived at a 1 in 10^15 probability of
finding via an undirected search a protein molecule
the size of cytochrome C, which under other reasonable assumptions may
occur as frequently as once every 32 years.

Yockey's analysis had more support from studies on the actual studies
on varying amino acids in cytochrome C, but this was inconclusive and
Dill's analysis may be correct. Hard experimental data was needed to
resolve this issue and Sauer et. al. provided the solid empirical data
which turned out to confirm Yockey's analysis.

Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the
scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids
in two different proteins. upon each substitution, the protein
sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They
discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains,
up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other
locations their was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations
could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One
of the proteins they chose was the 92 residue lambda repressor.

Sauer et. al. calculated that:

"... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for
the entire 92 residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in
a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information
that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the
estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda
repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in
10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences."

Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a
similar result for cytochrome C. He also points out that destruction
of the proteins would be far more extensive if multiple amino acid
sites are mutated randomly.

Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A.
Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86,
2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T.
Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316,
1990.

This hard science is a striking confirmation of Yockey's theoretical
work

In summing up, I quote creationists Professors Percival Davis (Ph.D.,
Life Sciences) and Dean Kenyon (Ph.D. Biology):

"These calculations [Sauer's] showed that the odds
of finding a folded protein are about 1/10^65, a striking
confirmation of Yockey's calculations. It means all proteins
that have been examined to date, either by comparison of
analogous sequences from different species, have been seen
to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of
unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. There are
in fact no "stepping stones"! In other words, an undirected
search will not hit upon any of the end protein sequences
sought in the time allowed by the age of the universe. The
various functional classes of proteins apparently are so
isolated, they could not have risen from one another."

(Of Pandas and People, 1993 edition).

The 2nd Law falsifies Evolution. It falsifies abiogenesis and

Evolution in that life as we observe it requires a flow of molecular
arrangements from high probability molecular arrangements to ones of
extraordinarily low probability states. In terms of energy, there is
not enough energy and time in our galaxy (or Universe) to perform the
work needed to make an undirected search for abiogenesis or the above
described 'protein sequences' to find the necessary series of
molecular arrangements reasonable probable.

The 2nd law is a central question for those who hold to spontaneous
generation:

Nobel Laureate, Biologists Christian De Duve, in his 1995 book `Vital
Dust', states that any and all scenarios for spontaneous generation
must be certain that each step of the process flows from lower
probability to higher probability so as not to violate the 2nd law.

According to the eminent information theoretician & evolutionist
Yockey:
" An uninvited guest (Schroedinger, 1955; du Nouy,1947; Prigogine,
and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz,
1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life
and
evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is
the
role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the universe
which it predicts. The universe should in every way go from states
which are less probable to those which are more probable.
Therefore,
hot bodies cool; energy is conserved but becomes less available
to do work. According to this uninvited guest, the spontaneous
generation of life is highly improbable ( Prigogine, Nicolis, and
Babyloyantz, 1972). The uninvited guest will not go away nor will
the biological evidence to the contrary notwithstanding."

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<qnm9kvgc9m9vk3i1589ilaalct3v84ucgt@4ax.com>...

In alt.talk.creationism,

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<LJJ0b.6043$_L7.2292363305@twister2.starband.net>...

...

So apparently, Bethell not only doesn't know what a "verge" is, but doesn't
even understand the Theory of Evolution he attempts to dispute.

Nonsense. Bethell was on the right track, Darwinian Evolution has
collapsed, at least scientifically though not in the realm of media
driven popular opinion ot classroom browbeating and brainwashing. The

How has it collapsed?

Its' in the details that evolutionists seemingly do not wish to deal
with. The scientific facts falsify it. I posted this thread one such
scientific evidence supplied by Professor EJ Ambrose.

The fossil record fails to support evolution. It is a tale of abrupt
appearances of each morphological type followed by stasis throughout
its' existence in the fossil record, and even up to extant creatures.

Evolution also violates the principle that makes the 2nd Law, entropy,
true.

The 2nd Law is simply the result of a greater principle of Physics:
"Massive amounts of Molecules, atoms, atomic particles, etc., tend
over time to flow (i.e. rearrange themselves) from states (i.e.
arrangements) of lower probability to states of ever increasing
probability.

This principle not only makes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics TRUE, it
applies equally to Information Theory because conveyance of
information is dependant on molecular arrangements.

Application of the above principle to energy flow is often what is
meant, in schools, by the 2nd Law. That is, the flow of molecular
states in contact will flow from states of energy differential to the
much more probable states of energy equilibrium. When energy
equilibrium is reached, work can no longer be done.

However, for states of configuration of molecules, the principle of
molecular flow will also always proceed from states of lower
probability to states of ever increasing probability.

This is because the 2nd Law is a consequence of the behavior of large
collections of molecules which behave in accordance with the laws of
probability. The molecules logically will flow over time from low
probability states to higher probability states. If there were many
more `orderly' states that molecules can arrange themselves in than
there were `disorderly' states for the molecules to arrange themselves
into, then the natural flow would be from states of disorder to states
of order. If this were true and we also define "Orderly" as performing
functions needed for the origin of life and for the origin species,
then Evolution could be possible.

For example, when a large vase falls and smashes onto a stone floor,
it would produce little tea cups if the probability of the molecules
arranging themselves into cups was much higher as compared to any
other possible configurations. But the laws of physics being what they
are, The vase breaks up into many pieces of varying sizes and shapes
that will be meaningless in terms of performing a useful function for
human beings. The molecules of the vase have "naturally" undergone a
change in arrangement from a specified complexity that performed a
function for humans to a more probable disordered chaotic functionless
arrangement.

Evolutionists believe that inanimate matter must have, through natural
processes only, spontaneously generated the first lifeform, and that
over time, the offspring of this first lifeform must have undergone
numerous mutations in such manner as to have spontaneously generated
new information in the RNA/DNA that provided new classes of proteins
and instructions needed to originate every type of lifeform that has
ever existed on this planet.

Leading evolutionists agree that each
step necessary for the spontaneous generation of life must be such
that the molecular flow must run from states of lower probability to
molecular states of ever higher probability.

This must also be true
for the spontaneous generation of new classes of proteins and the
injection of new coded information into the DNA, as would be necessary
to bring about new evolved body plans (i.e. creature types).

Distinguished scientist and expert on origins, A.E. Wilder-Smith
stated:
"What is the difference between a stick, which is dead, and an
orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has
teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to
increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy,..."
Teleonomy is the information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy
involves the concept of something having a design and a purpose.

Nonsense. Bethell was on the right track, Darwinian Evolution has
collapsed

The fossil record fails to support evolution.

It is a tale of abrupt
appearances of each morphological type followed by stasis throughout
its' existence in the fossil record, and even up to extant creatures.

Evolution also violates the principle that makes the 2nd Law, entropy,
true.

The 2nd Law is simply the result of a greater principle of Physics:
"Massive amounts of Molecules, atoms, atomic particles, etc., tend
over time to flow (i.e. rearrange themselves) from states (i.e.
arrangements) of lower probability to states of ever increasing
probability.

Indeed, in their efforts to demonstrate scientifically that Evolution,
and its necessary parent: "The Spontaneous Generation of Life"

The Theory of Evolution

demands that since the very earliest life, new
classes of proteins must have come into existence and new instructions
must be continually encoded into DNA to produce novel physical
features, organs, traits that we know have come to exist.
Hubert Yockey, in 1978, did theoretical calculations to determine the
information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity. Mr.
Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons.
His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a
protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65.

This hard science

In summing up, I quote creationists Professors Percival Davis (Ph.D.,
Life Sciences) and Dean Kenyon (Ph.D. Biology):
"These calculations [Sauer's] showed that the odds
of finding a folded protein are about 1/10^65