# A/D for end of charge detection for NIMHs & NICADs

Discussion in 'Electronic Basics' started by Mike, Jul 19, 2006.

1. ### MikeGuest

Is a 10bit A/D be adequate for detecting the end charge condition for

Mike

2. ### PeteSGuest

8 bits would be adequate, imo.

Cheers

PeteS

3. ### Bob MastaGuest

Just for the record: The above statement, while true, is often
misused by creationists. They have created a "straw man" argument
that if life wasn't created by God, then the only alternative is that
it must have formed *in one go* against ridiculous odds.

There are some major fallacies here: The first is that nothing in
chemistry forms randomly. Consider the odds of billions of
atoms "randomly" coming together to form a perfect cube
from sea water. If you do the combinatorial math considering
all the possible non-cubic alignments you get much longer odds
than the above example. Yet this happens all the time, every
day, all over the world, when salt crystallizes from sea water.

Another major fallacy is that they seem to think that any
non-theological hypothesis about the origin of life requires
everything to happen in one shot. But the world doesn't
work that way, either. Once there are "building blocks"
(amino acids, which are known to arise spntaneously from
inert materials), then these can form into sub-assemblies
and so on. Probability-wise, this is like the odds of getting
a straight flush in poker on the initial deal, versus allowing
a player an unlimited number of new cards and letting him keep
the ones that fit each time.

But the very worst fallacy in these "odds" games is that they
are (allegedly) computing the probability of a given outcome.
But there are an enormous number of possible outcomes that
would be equally acceptable. If not *that particular*
protein, there are others that would do the same job, possibly
better. (That's the whole idea of evolution in the first place.) And
(the question the creationists are really concerned about) there
is no particular predefined outcome that *must* look like us.

Just imagine the 20-tentacled slime creatures from Alpha Centauri
saying "Gosh, what are the odds that pure random processes could
form perfect creatures like *US*?!!!"

We now return you to our regularly scheduled electronics
programming...

Best regards,

Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator

4. ### jasenGuest

with offset zero it probably is. -- if those 10 bits correspond to voltages
between 1.10 and 1,30 volts (per cell) you'd have a resolution of about 200uV
per bit. Is that enough ?

5. ### MikeGuest

Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit
and I did some more homework and after doing so I totally convinced of
the folly of darwinism. I hesitated to respond to your comments since
this is not the proper forum for this topic, but I cannot let it go
without clairifing a few things, for the record then I'll drop the
subject.

I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know
nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some
light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since
the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of
this post.

Also for the record, the full title is.
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the
illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was
believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last
shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever
observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier
scrutiny.
Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first
living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.

More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific
evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a
mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the publication of The Origin of Species there has not
been a single example found of a given species evolving into a
different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a
fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the
major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone.
I wonder, why?

An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley -
Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex
President of UNESCO
"I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was
because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the
principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate
over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to
darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense
to me.

I also refer you to "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," (The
Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))
Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of
darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a
mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting
such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is
arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20
different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains
of 200 or so in length.

A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same
lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
----
Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear
reactions taking place in red giants.

Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in
this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate
resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so
smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable
chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex
resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such
disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our
existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The
Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
----

Btw,
If anyone has even a passing interest in astronomy, do youself a favor
and get a copy of the DVD "The Privileged Planet" by Dr Guillermo
Gonzalez and Dr Jay Richards. It is an excellent production with very
nice graphic illustrations and talks about our planet and it's place
in the universe. There is an especially fascintaing short segment that
graphically demonstrates the size of the universe. IMHO it is WELL
worth the money for that short segment alone.
This is the same point as you made earlier, so again, I refer you to
the work of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible
complexity. Also, the evidence from the fossil and strata records show
that species do indeed appear "in one shot" without the required
intermediate forms.

Please don't take my word for it, but those of much more qualified
individuals.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on faith alone .. exactly the same sort of faith
which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries
of religion."
Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur,
p. 33.

"‘What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith,
upon belief in the reality of the unseen belief in the fossils that
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that
refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."
Arthur N. Field.

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p.
88.

The problem with this argument is that the odds calculated by Crick
were based on the prior existance of all 20 of the different amino
acids that make up the protein molecule.I refer you to the following
paper by Dr. Bruce D. McLaughlin.
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm
Ahh, sounds good on the surface, but not so.
You have unwittingly provided a prime example of why "natural
selection" makes no sense. Let's say for the sake of argument that
"natural selection" is controlling a cosmic poker game. Since natural
selection by definition cannot look to the future for a specific
outcome it must simply look at the hand dealt and keep it only if it
is worthy. You say "keep the ones that fit". I ask, Fit what? To know
if they "fit" requires prior knowlege of a desired outcome and of
couse no such desired outcome is possible with blind natural
selection.
I'm not sure that I would use the term "odds games" considering, for
example, that much of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics involves
probabilities and uncertainty["odds games"]. Also, I trust that Crick,
a nobel prize winner in the field, "allegedly" knew how to calculate
the odds correctly. Btw, he is not the only one to perform such
calculations. His is just one of the more modest ones.
A facinating opinion, but just an opinion that has never been shown to
be true, or even likely to be true. No one has even been able to force
such a combination to form even under intelligent direction in the
lab.

"[Darwin’s theory that all evolution is due to the gradual
accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as
it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the
Darwinian mode at a microevolutionary level [finding change within
species] . . only serves to highlight its failure at a
macroevolutionary level [finding change across species]."
Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis (1988), pp. 344-345.

Jean Rostand - member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy
"Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults. This theory has
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Also see the article at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...ew&id=2177&program=CSC - Scientific Research
and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
I, being a creationist, am not concerned with that in the least.
Actuall we're not even talking about "evolving" all the way to
intelligent life, just the formation of a single modest length protein
molecule. A very very far cry from the intricacies of a living cell.
One thing that is almost universially agreed upon by scientists is
that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, that is to say,
they apply equally here on Earth as they would on a planet that may
exist in the Alpha Centauri system, so most scientists agree that any
other life that might be out there would probably be very much like it
is here on earth. This is the assumption behind NASAs search for signs
of water in the solar system and beyond.

I can imagine quite a few things, but unfortunatly imagining something
does not make it a reality. For example, I can imagine that there is
an all powerful God who created everything. My imagination does not
make it true, so I go with what I believe and it just so happens that
my belief much more closely fits with the evidence than evolution
does.

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that
the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is
anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject
a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports
it."
H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31
(1980), p. 138.

If you have made it this far through my ramblings, I beg you, please
consider the following.

If, just if, mine is the correct position then no harm done. I simply
plod along through life with much hope in the future and trying
(failing badly at times) to live my life the way I believe God wants
me to live, but - the consequences for you will be devastating! I tell
you the truth, Neither God nor I want that.

If yours is the correct position then we can still both continue on
our own paths, but where is your hope? What's the point of it all?
Since we are just a cosmic accident then there is absolutely no reason
for our being. After all, our creation was just a miraculous accident.
The only sense of right and wrong must then come from the mind of man
and of course that is subject to, and will, change as society
dictates. I will only mention in passing the devastating impact
evolution has had on our society, but that's an entirely different can
of worms that I won't go into here. Just look it up.

You would be wise to set your faith aside for just a little while as I
did, then take a close look at the overwhelming body of evidence
against evolution. Then even if you can't bring youself to admit that
Christ created all things, then you at least need to realize that
however our universe and the life in it came to be, it was not
evolution!

Just to underscore the evolution debate.

SOME QUOTES FROM VARIOUS SCIENTISTS:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of
Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or
lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious,
but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism,
purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies
and falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and
stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected
that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of
Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical
cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking
us and holding us back."
L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that
the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but
that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly
incredible."
Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century,
1941.

"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling
that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to
admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and
uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature
travel in different directions. "The particular truth is simply that
we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of
invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other
group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred
once, or twice, or many times . . We have all been telling our
students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but
to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to
John T. Bonner, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A.
Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. John Bonner is with
the California Institute of Technology.

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist
in Great Brittain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because
the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."

"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear
that evolution has no single cause."
G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has
status only as a speculation."
George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"When Professor [George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is
determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of
ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of
evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments
can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to
revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many
years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the
"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982,
p. 567.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their
predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary
hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things
unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the
data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This
situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine
they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with
scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by
the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is
abnormal and undesirable in science."
W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted
in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant
minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the
number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment
is practically endless."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread
illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred
years ago and that all subsequent biological
research--paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of
genetics and molecular biology--has provided ever-increasing evidence
for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago
that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of
his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any
support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated
and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous
mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative
hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from
that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would
have us believe."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the
first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of
life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this
suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully
assessed in toto [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of
origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist
view."
Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal,
Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as
to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact
that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of
many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems
will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students.
Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found,
and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually,
quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have
forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."
Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation:
The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

There are many many more, but I think I have made the point.
Evolution is by no means a proven "fact".
You know, I don't believe we ever did return, oh well.

Mike

In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth.
GEN 1:1

6. ### Rich WebbGuest

[Here be snipped hundreds of lines containing nothing more than the
classic logical falicy, argument from ignorance]

Summary of Mike: We don't know every last jot and tiddle about the
origin or the evolution of life on Earth. Therefore, the God of the
Hebrew bible is the only alternative and, necessarily, the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorancee

7. ### PeteSGuest

I like it

My take:

'Irreducible complexity' is a copout to relieve some of us of thinking
through the answer because it might interfere with their beliefs.
No real scientist I know of believes in 'irreducible complexity' as
espoused by the ID crowd; they might well believe some things are too
complex to answer *right now* because we have insufficient data.

I might also note that irreducible complexity is a philosophical
construct, not a scientific one.

Cheers

PeteS

8. ### MikeGuest

Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit
and I did some more homework and after doing so I am totally convinced
of the folly of darwinism. I hesitated to respond to your comments
since this is not the proper forum for this topic, but I cannot let it
go without clairifing a few things, for the record then I'll drop the
subject.

I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know
nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some
light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since
the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of
this post.

Also for the record, the full title is.
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the
illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was
believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last
shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever
observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier
scrutiny.
Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first
living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.

More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific
evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a
mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the publication of The Origin of Species there has not
been a single example found of a given species evolving into a
different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a
fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the
major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone.
I wonder, why?

An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley -
Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex
President of UNESCO
"I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was
because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the
principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate
over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to
darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense
to me.

I also refer you to "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," (The
Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))
Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of
darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a
mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting
such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is
arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20
different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains
of 200 or so in length.

A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same
lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
----
Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear
reactions taking place in red giants.

Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in
this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate
resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so
smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable
chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex
resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such
disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our
existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The
Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
----

Btw,
If anyone has even a passing interest in astronomy, do youself a favor
and get a copy of the DVD "The Privileged Planet" by Dr Guillermo
Gonzalez and Dr Jay Richards. It is an excellent production with very
nice graphic illustrations and talks about our planet and it's place
in the universe. There is an especially fascintaing short segment that
graphically demonstrates the size of the universe. IMHO it is WELL
worth the money for that short segment alone.
This is the same point as you made earlier, so again, I refer you to
the work of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible
complexity. Also, the evidence from the fossil and strata records show
that species do indeed appear "in one shot" without the required
intermediate forms.

Please don't take my word for it, but those of much more qualified
individuals.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on faith alone .. exactly the same sort of faith
which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries
of religion."
Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur,
p. 33.

"‘What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith,
upon belief in the reality of the unseen belief in the fossils that
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that
refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."
Arthur N. Field.

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p.
88.

The problem with this argument is that the odds calculated by Crick
were based on the prior existance of all 20 of the different amino
acids that make up the protein molecule.I refer you to the following
paper by Dr. Bruce D. McLaughlin.
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm
Ahh, sounds good on the surface, but not so.
You have unwittingly provided a prime example of why "natural
selection" makes no sense. Let's say for the sake of argument that
"natural selection" is controlling a cosmic poker game. Since natural
selection by definition cannot look to the future for a specific
outcome it must simply look at the hand dealt and keep it only if it
is worthy. You say "keep the ones that fit". I ask, Fit what? To know
if they "fit" requires prior knowlege of a desired outcome and of
couse no such desired outcome is possible with blind natural
selection.
I'm not sure that I would use the term "odds games" considering, for
example, that much of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics involves
probabilities and uncertainty["odds games"]. Also, I trust that Crick,
a nobel prize winner in the field, "allegedly" knew how to calculate
the odds correctly. Btw, he is not the only one to perform such
calculations. His is just one of the more modest ones.
A facinating opinion, but just an opinion that has never been shown to
be true, or even likely to be true. No one has even been able to force
such a combination to form even under intelligent direction in the
lab.

"[Darwin’s theory that all evolution is due to the gradual
accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as
it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the
Darwinian mode at a microevolutionary level [finding change within
species] . . only serves to highlight its failure at a
macroevolutionary level [finding change across species]."
Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis (1988), pp. 344-345.

Jean Rostand - member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy
"Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults. This theory has
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Also see the article at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...ew&id=2177&program=CSC - Scientific Research
and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
I, being a creationist, am not concerned with that in the least.
Actuall we're not even talking about "evolving" all the way to
intelligent life, just the formation of a single modest length protein
molecule. A very very far cry from the intricacies of a living cell.
One thing that is almost universially agreed upon by scientists is
that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, that is to say,
they apply equally here on Earth as they would on a planet that may
exist in the Alpha Centauri system, so most scientists agree that any
other life that might be out there would probably be very much like it
is here on earth. This is the assumption behind NASAs search for signs
of water in the solar system and beyond.

I can imagine quite a few things, but unfortunatly imagining something
does not make it a reality. For example, I can imagine that there is
an all powerful God who created everything. My imagination does not
make it true, so I go with what I believe and it just so happens that
my belief much more closely fits with the evidence than evolution
does.

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that
the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is
anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject
a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports
it."
H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31
(1980), p. 138.

If you have made it this far through my ramblings, I beg you, please
consider the following.

If, just if, mine is the correct position then no harm done. I simply
plod along through life with much hope in the future and trying
(failing badly at times) to live my life the way I believe God wants
me to live, but - the consequences for you will be devastating! I tell
you the truth, Neither God nor I want that.

If yours is the correct position then we can still both continue on
our own paths, but where is your hope? What's the point of it all?
Since we are just a cosmic accident then there is absolutely no reason
for our being. After all, our creation was just a miraculous accident.
The only sense of right and wrong must then come from the mind of man
and of course that is subject to, and will, change as society
dictates. I will only mention in passing the devastating impact
evolution has had on our society, but that's an entirely different can
of worms that I won't go into here. Just look it up.

You would be wise to set your faith aside for just a little while as I
did, then take a close look at the overwhelming body of evidence
against evolution. Then even if you can't bring youself to admit that
Christ created all things, then you at least need to realize that
however our universe and the life in it came to be, it was not
evolution!

Just to underscore the evolution debate.

SOME QUOTES FROM VARIOUS SCIENTISTS:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of
Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or
lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious,
but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism,
purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies
and falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and
stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected
that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of
Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical
cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking
us and holding us back."
L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that
the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but
that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly
incredible."
Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century,
1941.

"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling
that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to
admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and
uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature
travel in different directions. "The particular truth is simply that
we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of
invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other
group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred
once, or twice, or many times . . We have all been telling our
students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but
to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to
John T. Bonner, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A.
Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. John Bonner is with
the California Institute of Technology.

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist
in Great Brittain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because
the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."

"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear
that evolution has no single cause."
G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has
status only as a speculation."
George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"When Professor [George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is
determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of
ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of
evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments
can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to
revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many
years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the
"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982,
p. 567.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their
predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary
hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things
unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the
data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This
situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine
they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with
scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by
the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is
abnormal and undesirable in science."
W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted
in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant
minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the
number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment
is practically endless."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread
illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred
years ago and that all subsequent biological
research--paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of
genetics and molecular biology--has provided ever-increasing evidence
for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago
that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of
his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any
support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated
and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous
mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative
hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from
that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would
have us believe."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the
first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of
life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this
suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully
assessed in toto [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of
origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist
view."
Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal,
Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as
to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact
that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of
many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems
will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students.
Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found,
and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually,
quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have
forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."
Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation:
The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

There are many many more, but I think I have made the point.
Evolution is by no means a proven "fact".
You know, I don't believe we ever did return, oh well.

Mike

In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth.
GEN 1:1

9. ### Homer J SimpsonGuest

Rubbish. Wait until you are infected with MRSA, a creature we created by
natural selection.

10. ### MikeGuest

Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit
and I did some more homework and after doing so I and many other much
more qualified people are totally convinced of the folly of darwinism.
I hesitated to respond to your comments since this is not the proper
forum for this topic, but I cannot let it go without clairifing a few
things, for the record, then I'll drop the subject.

I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know
nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some
light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since
the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of
this post.

Also for the record, the full title is.
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the
illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was
believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last
shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever
observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier
scrutiny.
Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first
living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.

More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific
evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a
mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the publication of The Origin of Species there has not
been a single example found of a given species evolving into a
different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a
fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the
major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone.
I wonder, why?

An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley -
Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex
President of UNESCO
"I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was
because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the
principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate
over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to
darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense
to me.

I also refer you to "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," (The
Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))
Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of
darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a
mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting
such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is
arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20
different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains
of 200 or so in length.

A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same
lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
----
Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear
reactions taking place in red giants.

Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in
this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate
resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so
smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable
chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex
resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such
disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our
existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The
Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
----

Btw,
If anyone has even a passing interest in astronomy, do youself a favor
and get a copy of the DVD "The Privileged Planet" by Dr Guillermo
Gonzalez and Dr Jay Richards. It is an excellent production with very
nice graphic illustrations and talks about our planet and it's place
in the universe. There is an especially fascintaing short segment that
graphically demonstrates the size of the universe. IMHO it is WELL
worth the money for that short segment alone.
This is the same point as you made earlier, so again, I refer you to
the work of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible
complexity. Also, the evidence from the fossil and strata records show
that species do indeed appear "in one shot" without the required
intermediate forms. There have been claims of find such intermediates,
but they have all turned out to be errors or outright deception.

Please don't take my word for it, but those of much more qualified
individuals.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on faith alone .. exactly the same sort of faith
which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries
of religion."
Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur,
p. 33.

"‘What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith,
upon belief in the reality of the unseen belief in the fossils that
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that
refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."
Arthur N. Field.

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p.
88.

The problem with this argument is that the odds calculated by Crick
were based on the prior existance of all 20 of the different amino
acids that make up the protein molecule. I refer you to the following
paper by Dr. Bruce D. McLaughlin.
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm
Ahh, sounds good on the surface, but not so.
You have unwittingly provided a prime example of why "natural
selection" makes no sense. Let's say for the sake of argument that
"natural selection" is controlling a cosmic poker game. Since natural
selection by definition cannot look to the future for a specific
outcome it must simply look at the hand dealt and keep it only if it
is worthy. You say "keep the ones that fit". I ask, Fit what? To know
if they "fit" requires prior knowlege of a desired outcome and of
couse no such desired outcome is possible with blind natural
selection. Only an intelligence can look for such a desired outcome.
I'm not sure that I would use the term "odds games" considering, for
example, that much of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics involves
probabilities and uncertainty["odds games"]. Also, I trust that Crick,
a nobel prize winner in the field, "allegedly" knew how to calculate
the odds correctly. Btw, he is not the only one to perform such
calculations. His is just one of the more modest ones.
A facinating opinion, but just an opinion that has never been shown to
be true, or even likely to be true. No one has even been able to force
such a combination to form even under intelligent direction in the
lab.

"[Darwin’s theory that all evolution is due to the gradual
accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as
it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the
Darwinian mode at a microevolutionary level [finding change within
species] . . only serves to highlight its failure at a
macroevolutionary level [finding change across species]."
Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis (1988), pp. 344-345.

Jean Rostand - member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy
"Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults. This theory has
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Also see the article at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science
Actuall we were not even talking about "evolving" all the way to
intelligent life, just the random formation of a single modest length
protein molecule. A very very far cry from the intricacies of a living
cell.
Btw, I, being a creationist, am not concerned with that in the least.
One thing that is almost universially agreed upon by scientists is
that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, that is to say,
they apply equally here on Earth as they would on a planet that may
exist in the Alpha Centauri system, so most scientists agree that any
other life that might be out there would very probably be very much
like it is here on earth. This is the assumption behind NASAs search
for signs of water in the solar system and beyond.

I can imagine quite a few things, but unfortunatly imagining something
does not make it a reality. For example, I can imagine that there is
an all powerful God who created everything. My imagination does not
make it true, so I go with what I believe and it just so happens that
my belief much more closely fits with the evidence than evolution
does.

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that
the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is
anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject
a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports
it."
H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31
(1980), p. 138.

If you have made it this far through my ramblings, I beg you, please
consider the following.

If, just if, mine is the correct position then no harm done. I simply
plod along through life with much hope in the future and trying
(failing badly at times) to live my life the way I believe God wants
me to live, but - the consequences for you will be devastating! I tell
you the truth, Neither God nor I want that.

If yours is the correct position then we can still both continue on
our own paths, but where is your hope? What's the point of it all?
Since we are just a cosmic accident then there is absolutely no reason
for our being. After all, our creation was just a miraculous accident.
The only sense of right and wrong must then come from the mind of man
and of course that is subject to, and will, change as society
dictates. I will only mention in passing the devastating impact
evolution has had on society, but that's an entirely different can of
worms that I won't go into here. Just look it up.

You would be wise to set your faith aside for a bit as I did, then
take a close look at the overwhelming body of evidence against
evolution. Then even if you can't bring youself to admit that Christ
created all things, then you at least need to realize that however our
universe and the life in it came to be, it was not evolution!

Just to underscore the evolution debate.

SOME QUOTES FROM VARIOUS SCIENTISTS:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of
Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or
lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious,
but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism,
purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies
and falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and
stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected
that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of
Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical
cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking
us and holding us back."
L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that
the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but
that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly
incredible."
Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century,
1941.

"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling
that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to
admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and
uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature
travel in different directions. "The particular truth is simply that
we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of
invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other
group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred
once, or twice, or many times . . We have all been telling our
students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but
to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to
John T. Bonner, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A.
Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. John Bonner is with
the California Institute of Technology.

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist
in Great Brittain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because
the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."

"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear
that evolution has no single cause."
G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has
status only as a speculation."
George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"When Professor [George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is
determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of
ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of
evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments
can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to
revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many
years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the
"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982,
p. 567.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their
predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary
hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things
unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the
data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This
situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine
they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with
scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by
the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is
abnormal and undesirable in science."
W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted
in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant
minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the
number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment
is practically endless."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread
illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred
years ago and that all subsequent biological
research--paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of
genetics and molecular biology--has provided ever-increasing evidence
for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago
that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of
his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any
support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated
and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous
mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative
hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from
that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would
have us believe."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the
first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of
life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this
suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully
assessed in toto [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of
origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist
view."
Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal,
Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as
to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact
that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of
many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems
will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students.
Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found,
and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually,
quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have
forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."
Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation:
The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

There are many many more, but I think I have made the point.
Evolution is by no means a proven "fact".
You know, I don't believe we ever did return, oh well.

Mike

"In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth."
GEN 1:1

11. ### MikeGuest

Sorry for the double post. I forgot to modify the subject line

Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit
and I did some more homework and after doing so I and many other much
more qualified people are totally convinced of the folly of darwinism.
I hesitated to respond to your comments since this is not the proper
forum for this topic, but I cannot let it go without clairifing a few
things, for the record, then I'll drop the subject.

I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know
nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some
light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since
the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of
this post.

Also for the record, the full title is.
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the
illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was
believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last
shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever
observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier
scrutiny.
Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first
living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.

More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific
evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a
mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the publication of The Origin of Species there has not
been a single example found of a given species evolving into a
different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a
fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the
major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone.
I wonder, why?

An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley -
Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex
President of UNESCO
"I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was
because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the
principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate
over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to
darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense
to me.

I also refer you to "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," (The
Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))
Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of
darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a
mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting
such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is
arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20
different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains
of 200 or so in length.

A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same
lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
----
Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear
reactions taking place in red giants.

Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in
this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate
resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so
smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable
chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex
resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such
disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our
existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The
Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
----

Btw,
If anyone has even a passing interest in astronomy, do youself a favor
and get a copy of the DVD "The Privileged Planet" by Dr Guillermo
Gonzalez and Dr Jay Richards. It is an excellent production with very
nice graphic illustrations and talks about our planet and it's place
in the universe. There is an especially fascintaing short segment that
graphically demonstrates the size of the universe. IMHO it is WELL
worth the money for that short segment alone.
This is the same point as you made earlier, so again, I refer you to
the work of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible
complexity. Also, the evidence from the fossil and strata records show
that species do indeed appear "in one shot" without the required
intermediate forms. There have been claims of find such intermediates,
but they have all turned out to be errors or outright deception.

Please don't take my word for it, but those of much more qualified
individuals.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on faith alone .. exactly the same sort of faith
which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries
of religion."
Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur,
p. 33.

"‘What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith,
upon belief in the reality of the unseen belief in the fossils that
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that
refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."
Arthur N. Field.

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p.
88.

The problem with this argument is that the odds calculated by Crick
were based on the prior existance of all 20 of the different amino
acids that make up the protein molecule. I refer you to the following
paper by Dr. Bruce D. McLaughlin.
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm
Ahh, sounds good on the surface, but not so.
You have unwittingly provided a prime example of why "natural
selection" makes no sense. Let's say for the sake of argument that
"natural selection" is controlling a cosmic poker game. Since natural
selection by definition cannot look to the future for a specific
outcome it must simply look at the hand dealt and keep it only if it
is worthy. You say "keep the ones that fit". I ask, Fit what? To know
if they "fit" requires prior knowlege of a desired outcome and of
couse no such desired outcome is possible with blind natural
selection. Only an intelligence can look for such a desired outcome.
I'm not sure that I would use the term "odds games" considering, for
example, that much of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics involves
probabilities and uncertainty["odds games"]. Also, I trust that Crick,
a nobel prize winner in the field, "allegedly" knew how to calculate
the odds correctly. Btw, he is not the only one to perform such
calculations. His is just one of the more modest ones.
A facinating opinion, but just an opinion that has never been shown to
be true, or even likely to be true. No one has even been able to force
such a combination to form even under intelligent direction in the
lab.

"[Darwin’s theory that all evolution is due to the gradual
accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as
it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the
Darwinian mode at a microevolutionary level [finding change within
species] . . only serves to highlight its failure at a
macroevolutionary level [finding change across species]."
Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis (1988), pp. 344-345.

Jean Rostand - member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy
"Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults. This theory has
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Also see the article at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science
Actuall we were not even talking about "evolving" all the way to
intelligent life, just the random formation of a single modest length
protein molecule. A very very far cry from the intricacies of a living
cell.
Btw, I, being a creationist, am not concerned with that in the least.
One thing that is almost universially agreed upon by scientists is
that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, that is to say,
they apply equally here on Earth as they would on a planet that may
exist in the Alpha Centauri system, so most scientists agree that any
other life that might be out there would very probably be very much
like it is here on earth. This is the assumption behind NASAs search
for signs of water in the solar system and beyond.

I can imagine quite a few things, but unfortunatly imagining something
does not make it a reality. For example, I can imagine that there is
an all powerful God who created everything. My imagination does not
make it true, so I go with what I believe and it just so happens that
my belief much more closely fits with the evidence than evolution
does.

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that
the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is
anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject
a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports
it."
H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31
(1980), p. 138.

If you have made it this far through my ramblings, I beg you, please
consider the following.

If, just if, mine is the correct position then no harm done. I simply
plod along through life with much hope in the future and trying
(failing badly at times) to live my life the way I believe God wants
me to live, but - the consequences for you will be devastating! I tell
you the truth, Neither God nor I want that.

If yours is the correct position then we can still both continue on
our own paths, but where is your hope? What's the point of it all?
Since we are just a cosmic accident then there is absolutely no reason
for our being. After all, our creation was just a miraculous accident.
The only sense of right and wrong must then come from the mind of man
and of course that is subject to, and will, change as society
dictates. I will only mention in passing the devastating impact
evolution has had on society, but that's an entirely different can of
worms that I won't go into here. Just look it up.

You would be wise to set your faith aside for a bit as I did, then
take a close look at the overwhelming body of evidence against
evolution. Then even if you can't bring youself to admit that Christ
created all things, then you at least need to realize that however our
universe and the life in it came to be, it was not evolution!

Just to underscore the evolution debate.

SOME QUOTES FROM VARIOUS SCIENTISTS:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of
Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or
lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious,
but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism,
purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies
and falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and
stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected
that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of
Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical
cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking
us and holding us back."
L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that
the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but
that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly
incredible."
Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century,
1941.

"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling
that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to
admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and
uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature
travel in different directions. "The particular truth is simply that
we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of
invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other
group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred
once, or twice, or many times . . We have all been telling our
students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but
to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to
John T. Bonner, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A.
Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. John Bonner is with
the California Institute of Technology.

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist
in Great Brittain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because
the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."

"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear
that evolution has no single cause."
G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has
status only as a speculation."
George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"When Professor [George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is
determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of
ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of
evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments
can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to
revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many
years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the
"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982,
p. 567.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their
predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary
hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things
unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the
data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This
situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine
they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with
scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by
the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is
abnormal and undesirable in science."
W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted
in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant
minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the
number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment
is practically endless."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread
illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred
years ago and that all subsequent biological
research--paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of
genetics and molecular biology--has provided ever-increasing evidence
for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago
that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of
his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any
support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated
and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous
mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative
hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from
that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would
have us believe."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the
first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of
life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this
suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully
assessed in toto [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of
origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist
view."
Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal,
Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as
to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact
that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of
many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems
will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students.
Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found,
and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually,
quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have
forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."
Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation:
The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

There are many many more, but I think I have made the point.
Evolution is by no means a proven "fact".
You know, I don't believe we ever did return, oh well.

Mike
"In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth."
GEN 1:1

12. ### Bob MyersGuest

I didn't see Bob's comments, but I'll add my own - the text is simply
wrong. So-called "arguments" against "evolution" (they are rarely
concerned with evolution itself, but rather with specific process proposed
as part of the body of theories having to do with the origins and
development of life on Earth) always, absolutely without exception in
my experience, over-simplify the situation or overlook crucial facts
in order to make their case LOOK correct. Whether this is done
through ignorance or simply such a burning desire to have one's case
look "scientific" that facts are knowingly ignored, I cannot say.

In this particular examples, and similar ones which purport to quote
"odds" against this or that particular arrangement of atoms coming
together "by chance," the math always overlooks the fact that atoms
DO NOT come together strictly "by chance." In other words, they
treat a given collection of atoms as though they were always going
to be blindly chosen utterly at random, and strung into molecules
like beads on a necklace. This, of course, is simply not the case.
Atoms combine according to very well-known and well-understood
laws. Put a given amount of hydrogen together with a given amount
of oxygen, add a little energy, and the result is ALWAYS ALWAYS
ALWAYS water molecules. You don't just get a huge number of
random collections of "O"s and "H"s in as many bizarre forms as
you could type out. So it is with the formation of proteins, etc.,
so that "math" which is being presented here is completely and utterly
meaningless. It serves only to delude the ignorant.
"Most people," to the extent that they think of this "debate" at all,
think there's a debate simply because the creationists like to portray one
as
existing and have therefore tried to tell the lay public that there is one.
In reality, there is absolutely no debate at all within the scientific
community
regarding the functioning of these basic processes. The models,
theories, and observations which make up that which you wish to
collectively label "evolution" are the bedrock of modern biology, and
are not seriously questioned by any legitimate researcher in the field.

But has not resulted in any serious questioning of its main tenets AT
ALL. To claim otherwise is simply a deceptive practice.
While technically correct, this is an example of telling only a half-truth.
Darwin's degree was in theology, but he had also had two years of
training in medicine at Edinburgh University, and considerable training
in biology and other sciences while attending Cambridge.
Complete nonsense.

Of course, this is in part a specious (no pun intended) argument, since
the very definition of "species" is artifiicial and to some degree fluid,
and 150 years is hardly sufficient time for the mechanisms involved
to have acted to cause speciation in the case of larger, longer-lived
organisms. We would not expect in so short a time to see the
equivalent of a horse becoming a cow, or some other equally
absurd example. However, if by "speciation" one refers to the
usually accepted criteria of morphology and lack of natural
inbreeding, there are in fact numerous examples which have been
observed in modern times. These include:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since t
hey were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock,
Lake Nagubago.

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred
in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male
offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong
intra-strain mating preferences.

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the
United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a
few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one
another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred,
the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring.
Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near
Pullman, Washington.

There are numerous other examples cited in the literature, but for some
reason these are never mentioned by the creationists. One has to
wonder why this is.

You should also, in fairness, refer people to the numerous and
quite thorough debunkings of these "works."

Complete nonsense. That YOU do not understand what
"fit" means in this context is by no means a valid argument against
the process.

I really have to question any so-called "theory" which, as we see
in the case of "creationism" time and time again, relies so heavily
on deception, mispresentation of the facts, selective evidence-gathering,
and other intellectually dishonest practices in order to make its
case.

Bob M.

13. ### Bob MyersGuest

I didn't see Bob's comments, but I'll add my own - the text is simply
wrong. So-called "arguments" against "evolution" (they are rarely
concerned with evolution itself, but rather with specific process proposed
as part of the body of theories having to do with the origins and
development of life on Earth) always, absolutely without exception in
my experience, over-simplify the situation or overlook crucial facts
in order to make their case LOOK correct. Whether this is done
through ignorance or simply such a burning desire to have one's case
look "scientific" that facts are knowingly ignored, I cannot say.

In this particular examples, and similar ones which purport to quote
"odds" against this or that particular arrangement of atoms coming
together "by chance," the math always overlooks the fact that atoms
DO NOT come together strictly "by chance." In other words, they
treat a given collection of atoms as though they were always going
to be blindly chosen utterly at random, and strung into molecules
like beads on a necklace. This, of course, is simply not the case.
Atoms combine according to very well-known and well-understood
laws. Put a given amount of hydrogen together with a given amount
of oxygen, add a little energy, and the result is ALWAYS ALWAYS
ALWAYS water molecules. You don't just get a huge number of
random collections of "O"s and "H"s in as many bizarre forms as
you could type out. So it is with the formation of proteins, etc.,
so that "math" which is being presented here is completely and utterly
meaningless. It serves only to delude the ignorant.
"Most people," to the extent that they think of this "debate" at all,
think there's a debate simply because the creationists like to portray one
as
existing and have therefore tried to tell the lay public that there is one.
In reality, there is absolutely no debate at all within the scientific
community
regarding the functioning of these basic processes. The models,
theories, and observations which make up that which you wish to
collectively label "evolution" are the bedrock of modern biology, and
are not seriously questioned by any legitimate researcher in the field.

But has not resulted in any serious questioning of its main tenets AT
ALL. To claim otherwise is simply a deceptive practice.
While technically correct, this is an example of telling only a half-truth.
Darwin's degree was in theology, but he had also had two years of
training in medicine at Edinburgh University, and considerable training
in biology and other sciences while attending Cambridge.
Complete nonsense.

Of course, this is in part a specious (no pun intended) argument, since
the very definition of "species" is artifiicial and to some degree fluid,
and 150 years is hardly sufficient time for the mechanisms involved
to have acted to cause speciation in the case of larger, longer-lived
organisms. We would not expect in so short a time to see the
equivalent of a horse becoming a cow, or some other equally
absurd example. However, if by "speciation" one refers to the
usually accepted criteria of morphology and lack of natural
inbreeding, there are in fact numerous examples which have been
observed in modern times. These include:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since t
hey were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock,
Lake Nagubago.

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred
in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male
offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong
intra-strain mating preferences.

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the
United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a
few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one
another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred,
the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring.
Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near
Pullman, Washington.

There are numerous other examples cited in the literature, but for some
reason these are never mentioned by the creationists. One has to
wonder why this is.

You should also, in fairness, refer people to the numerous and
quite thorough debunkings of these "works."

Complete nonsense. That YOU do not understand what
"fit" means in this context is by no means a valid argument against
the process.

I really have to question any so-called "theory" which, as we see
in the case of "creationism" time and time again, relies so heavily
on deception, mispresentation of the facts, selective evidence-gathering,
and other intellectually dishonest practices in order to make its
case.

Bob M.

14. ### Bob MastaGuest

I have been watching the creationism "industry" for a long
time. I think that the problem is that true believers refuse to
look into any information source besides other true believers.
They assume that their sources must be trustworthy because,
after all, the sources are doing God's work... so they must be telling
the unvarnished truth. They overlook the fact that the goal of
the creationist sources is more along the lines of saving souls
(and saving face) than true learning. The lies that come out of
these factories are pretty amazing, considering that they all
probably purport to uphold the Ten Commandments. (Or maybe
"bearing false witness" is only taken in the restricted sense?)

I think the problem is one of whom to trust. The believers have
been told that logic and reason are the tools of Satan, so they better
not stray from the religious sources for fear of their immortal souls.
I have never yet encountered a creationist who had more than the
most minimal understanding of biology, so the guy in the pew has
no way to validate what he hears. And the creationist arguments
always appeal to the common man, without requiring any further
reflection.

Most of the creationist industry seems to be "quote mining" as
demonstrated in Mike's post. It always boggles my mind to think
of all these drones skimming the scientific literature for a quote
they can twist or misrepresent... seems that with all that effort
they could actually *learn* something from what they read!

One thing that I find pretty amusing is their champions:
Johnson is a lawyer... so we should trust his word on biology?
(Would you trust a lawyer's words on *anything*?)

Dembski is an alleged statistician who seems to have no
understanding of the bases of statistics at all.

Behe is a third-rate biochemist who recycled a 200 year-old argument
(Paley's "half an eye") that has been refuted (repeatedly!) since it

My favorite is Wells, a Moonie who got a doctorate in biology
with the expressly-stated intention of *not* understanding the
material, just so he could offer some desperately-needed credentials
to the creationist industry!

Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator

15. ### MikeGuest

Bob Masta, see my prvious post.

As you are fond of saying, complete nonsense.
I'm no scientist, but common sense tells me that if the underlying
processes proposed in support of a theory are in question then the
theory itself must also be in question. How else would one refute the
theory if not by refuting it's proposed underlying processes?

As for your other allegations, You would need to take that up Crick,
not with me.
Speaking of deluding the ignorant, I believe you have simply restated
what I said with the added assumption that the formation of such
complex molecules are also a given. This assumption is not as
axiomatic as you would have one believe. Check out the article at
http://evolution-facts.org/new_material.htm and you'll find out just
how difficult it is to get these complex molecules to form. It's a
long article, but worth the time to read.

or for a more rigorous presentation
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm

I hope you don't seriously believe that Crick had the sinister
ulterior motive "to delude the ignorant" when he wrote the book.
Uh Oh, more "complete nonsense"
If anyone really believes the nonsense that there is no debate on
darwinism among legitimate researchers I suggest you google "evolution
debate" and check out some of the about 411,000 hits generated and be
sure to take a look at this list
http://evolution-facts.org/ScientistsVSDarwin.pdf

Here's another quote probably taken out of context.

Dr Steven J Gould - Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard
University
"There have been more than 100 debates between evolutionist and
creationists. We should stop debating these people(creationists)
because we have lost all 100 of the debates."

An odd thing to say in any context given the "fact" that there is no
debate on darwinism.
I do not claim anything, I simply restate what qualified scientist
Uh, the point was that he gave credit for that 1st living cell to God.
C'mon now, pay attention. Btw means "by the way" and is generally used
to inject a minor point of fact. I have to admit that I suspect you
were aware of my point, ignored it, and concentrated on a point of
trivia just for an opportunity to shoot the messenger. Just a
suspicion mind you.

Intesesting though, by your logic, since I studied physics in college
then I am qualified to formulate a new string theory. An obvious
absurdity!
Oh dear, another declaration of "complete nonsense" with no evidence
supporting it, but ok, explain this:

L. Harrison Matthews (F.R.S.)
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus
in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved
theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of
evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -
both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to
the present, has been capable of proof" - Introduction to The Origin
of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971)

and this

Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum
of Natural History said:- "The evidence we find in the geological
record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as
we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil
species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution
is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of
evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem
has not been alleviated". (Raup, Field museum of Natural History
Bulletin).

and this

"With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the
first time in the fossil record already fully evolved, with most of
their characteristic features present". Dr T S Kemp, Curator of
Zoological collections, Oxford University (Kemp, 1999. Fossils and
evolution, p. 253).

and this

Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to
point out:- "The known fossil record fails to document a single
example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can
be valid." Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San
Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.

and this

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist
in Great Britain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable."
" We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation
and that is unthinkable."

I could go on, but I think these people have made the point.
Indeed a true statement, but alas you missed the point yet again. You
really need to pay attention. I did not say that the actual
"evolution" should have taken place in the last 150yrs. What I did say
was that no proof that such an evolutionary process has occured in the
past has been found in the 150 yrs since Darwin wrote the origins.
You said that the concept of species is "artifiicial and to some
degree fluid" then give examples of speciation to support evolution.
You refute a concept then use that very concept to support your
position. Not a good tactic.
I'll not pretend to be an expert on darwinism, or that I can properly
analyze field research. I must leave that to qualified people.
I simply observe what such people have to say. For example what the
scientists above had to say. I then base my conclusions on what makes
sense to me.

There are numerous examples of dissenting views by reputable
scientists, but for some reason these are never mentioned by the
darwinists and sometimes even suppressed by peer reviewed
publications(see excerpt below). One has to wonder why this is.

You know, to tell you the truth, personally I couldn't care less about
different varieties of fish or flowers that may or may not be
different species. I want to see proof that I came from anything other
than God. As I have already shown, even the most staunch supporters of
darwinism have lamented that such proof does not exist. Even some of
the circumstantial evidence has been shown to have been faked. I refer
you to Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices" toward the end
of this post.
Wait a minute, I thought you said there was no debate. In any case
Google doesn't care. If you search for "irredcible complexity" you'll
get hits for both sides of the non existant debate.
Oops, you missed the point yet again, Go have a cup of coffee then
read it again slowly. I did not say that I do not understand what
"fit" means. What I understand or don't understand is irrelevant. I
did say that blind natural selection cannot know what fits. Which is,
by definition, absolutely true. I know what "fit" means in this
context because I've played poker before and know the desired outcome.
Again, I believe you understood my point, ignored it, and attempted to
refute something I didn't say or even imply.
Do you realize that you tend to make harsh blanket statements with
absolutely no proof presented in support of those statements?
This is not an effective debating technique.
At least I have attempted to provide evidence in support of my
position in the form of references to articles and books, and in what
reputable scientists are saying.

Btw, the theory is Intelligent design, not creationism.

Note: Btw is used here to inject a minor point of fact.

For a list of peer reviewed books and articles supporting the
"so-called theory" of intelligent design go to the link below.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science
This is by no means an all inclusive list.

Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices".

http://evolution-facts.org/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2796

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2715

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSCStories&id=532

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2783

Consider the following excerpt from an article by Dr Jonathan Wells

The pro-Darwin bias in biology journals effectively excludes an
alternative scientific theory such as intelligent design. Michael J.
Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, pointed out in
a 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box, that some features of living things
are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they function only when all of
their parts are in place. Behe reasoned that such features could not
have been assembled by "numerous, successive, slight modifications,"
as Darwin’s theory requires, since the intermediate steps would have
been non-functional and thus could not have been favored by natural
selection. According to Behe, irreducible complexity points to
intelligent design, rather than Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian biologists have criticized Behe’s view in several
peer-reviewed journals, including Nature, Trends in Ecology and
Evolution and The Quarterly Review of Biology. Yet, peer-reviewed
science journals have consistently refused to publish Behe’s responses
to such criticisms. One journal editor, in refusing to publish one
such response, cited a reviewer who wrote: "In this referee’s
judgment, the manuscript of Michael Behe does not contribute anything
useful to evolutionary science."

When Behe submitted an essay to another biology journal, the editor
wrote back: "As you no doubt know, our journal has supported and
demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning,
and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and
phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such
as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific grounds,
cannot be appropriate for our pages." Since Behe’s essay dealt with
evidence for his position (the hallmark of scientific reasoning), the
phrase "other than scientific grounds" simply reflects the fact that
for this journal, "science" is equated with "evolution."

So the rule is this: A theory such as intelligent design, that
fundamentally challenges Darwinian evolution, is not scientific so it
can’t be published in peer-reviewed science journals; and we know it’s
not scientific because it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed
science journals. Catch-23!

Jonathan Wells holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of
California, Berkeley, and has published articles in several
peer-reviewed science journals. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the
Discovery Institute in Seattle and the author of Icons of Evolution
(2000)

Granted, the following 3 quotes aren't from qualified evolutionary
scientists, but still interesting. From wikipedia

On 24 December 1968, in what was the most watched television broadcast
to date, the crew of Apollo 8 surpised the world with a reading from
Genesis as they orbited the moon.

William Anders:

"For all the people on Earth the crew of Apollo 8 has a message we
would like to send you.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth
was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the
deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God
said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light,
that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Jim Lovell:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let
there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the
waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the
waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And
the evening and the morning were the second day."

Frank Borman:

"And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God
called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters
called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a
Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you - all of you on the good
Earth."

In closing.

Evolution just didn't seem plausible to me, so I set out to see what I
could learn about it since it wasn't even taught when I was in school.
It turned out that there are reputable scientists who agree with me.
Wow, I didn't know that. Isn't the internet wonderful. Some of those
scientists attempts at publication have been supressed or they have
been intimidated into silence. I also found out that evidence
supporting evolution has been faked and even after discovery, is still
in use use in textbooks to this day.
One of lifes lessons that I have learned over the years is that it's
generally not wise to trust bullies, liars, and fools. So, I write off
most of what I read from these "establishment" types as propaganda and
consider the rest.

I have never asked that anyone take my word for anything. I have, to
the best of my ability, provided links and references supporting the
position that modern evolution is simply junk science.

The bottom line is that creationism and darwinism are not theories at
all, but rather dogmas. Neither of which has been and probably never
will be proved. The difference is that darwinists present their
beliefs as scientific fact and creationists do not. Yes, it's a bit of
a generalization, but for the most part a true statement. There are
of course exceptions on both sides.

Mike

Prof David Albrooke - Univ of Australia
evolution is "a time hononed tennant of faith."

16. ### MikeGuest

Bob Masta, see my prvious post.

As you are fond of saying, complete nonsense.
I'm no scientist, but common sense dictates that if the underlying
processes proposed in support of a theory are in question then the
theory itself must also be in question. How else would one refute a
theory if not by refuting it's proposed underlying processes?

As for your other unsubstantiated allegations, You would need to take
that up with Dr Crick or Dr McLaughlin since Crick died 2004, but not
with me.
Speaking of deluding the ignorant, I believe you have simply restated
what I said with the added assumption that the formation of such
complex molecules are also a given. This assumption is not as
axiomatic as you would have one believe. Check out the article at
http://evolution-facts.org/new_material.htm and you'll find out just
how difficult it is to get these complex molecules to form. It's a
long article, but worth the time to read.

or for a more rigorous presentation
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm

I hope you don't seriously believe that Dr Crick had the sinister
ulterior motive "to delude the ignorant" when he wrote the book.
Uh Oh, more "complete nonsense"
If anyone really believes the nonsense that there is no debate on
darwinism among legitimate researchers I suggest you google "evolution
debate" and check out some of the about 411,000 hits generated, but be
sure to take a look at this list
http://evolution-facts.org/ScientistsVSDarwin.pdf

Here's another quote probably taken out of context.

Dr Steven J Gould - Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard
University
"There have been more than 100 debates between evolutionist and
creationists. We should stop debating these people(creationists)
because we have lost all 100 of the debates."

An odd thing to say in any context given the "fact" that there is no
debate on darwinism.
I do not claim anything, I simply restate what qualified scientist
Uh, the point was that he gave credit for that 1st living cell to God.
C'mon now, pay attention. Btw means "by the way" and is generally used
to inject a minor point of fact. I have to admit that I suspect you
were aware of my point, ignored it, and concentrated on a point of
trivia just for an opportunity to shoot the messenger. Just a
suspicion mind you.

Intesesting though, by your logic, since I studied physics in college
then I would be qualified to formulate a new string theory. An obvious
absurdity!
Oh dear, another declaration of "complete nonsense" with no evidence
supporting it, but ok, explain this:

L. Harrison Matthews (F.R.S.)
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus
in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved
theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of
evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -
both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to
the present, has been capable of proof" - Introduction to The Origin
of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971)

and this

Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum
of Natural History said:- "The evidence we find in the geological
record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as
we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil
species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution
is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of
evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem
has not been alleviated". (Raup, Field museum of Natural History
Bulletin).

and this

"With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the
first time in the fossil record already fully evolved, with most of
their characteristic features present". Dr T S Kemp, Curator of
Zoological collections, Oxford University (Kemp, 1999. Fossils and
evolution, p. 253).

and this

Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to
point out:- "The known fossil record fails to document a single
example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can
be valid." Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San
Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.

and this

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist
in Great Britain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable."
" We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation
and that is unthinkable."

I could go on, but I think these people have made the point.
Indeed a true statement, but alas you missed the point yet again. You
really need to pay attention. I did not say that the actual
"evolution" should have taken place in the last 150yrs. What I did say
was that no proof that such an evolutionary process has occured in the
past has been found in the 150 yrs since Darwin wrote the origins.
You said that the concept of species is "artifiicial and to some
degree fluid" then give examples of speciation to support evolution.

You refute a concept then use that very concept to support your
position. I'm not sure how that works.
I'll not pretend to be an expert on darwinism, or that I can properly
analyze field research. I must leave that to qualified people.
I simply observe what such people have to say and to some extent, how
they say it. For example what the scientists above had to say. I then
base my conclusions on what makes sense to me.

There are numerous examples of dissenting views by reputable
scientists, but for some reason these are never mentioned by the
darwinists. One has to wonder why this is.

Some of these scientists have even had their views suppressed by peer
reviewed publications(see excerpt toward the end of this post for an
example). One has to wonder why this is.

You know, to tell you the truth, personally I couldn't care less about
different varieties of fish or flowers that may or may not be
different species. I want to see proof that I came from anything other
than God. As I have already shown, even the most staunch supporters of
darwinism have lamented that such proof does not exist. Even some of
the circumstantial evidence has been shown to have been faked. I refer
you to Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices" toward the end
of this post.
Wait a minute, I thought you said there was no debate. In any case
Google doesn't care. If you search for "irredcible complexity" you'll
get hits for both sides of the non existant debate.
Oops, you missed the point yet again, Go have a cup of coffee then
read it again slowly. I did not say that I do not understand what
"fit" means. What I understand or don't understand is irrelevant. I
did say that blind natural selection cannot know what fits. Which is,
by definition, absolutely true. I know what "fit" means in this
context because I've played poker before and know the desired outcome.
Again, I believe you understood my point, ignored it, and attempted to
refute something I didn't say or even imply.
Do you realize that you tend to make harsh blanket statements with
absolutely no proof presented in support of those statements?
This is not an effective debating technique.
I have attempted to provide evidence in support of my position in the
form of references to articles and books, and to what reputable
scientists are saying on the subject. You can accept or deny that
evidence, but at least I presented it.

Btw, the theory is Intelligent design, not creationism.

Note: Btw is used here to inject a minor point of fact.

For a list of peer reviewed books and articles supporting the
"so-called theory" of intelligent design go to the link below.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science

Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices".

http://evolution-facts.org/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2796

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2715

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSCStories&id=532

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2783

and

Dr Ken Poppy a 30 yr veteran science teacher, was forced to transfer
to a different school because he simple mentioned in an elective class
the fact that the intelligent design theory existed and that there was
a book in the library if anyone was interested.

and

Consider the following excerpt from an article by Dr Jonathan Wells

The pro-Darwin bias in biology journals effectively excludes an
alternative scientific theory such as intelligent design. Michael J.
Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, pointed out in
a 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box, that some features of living things
are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they function only when all of
their parts are in place. Behe reasoned that such features could not
have been assembled by "numerous, successive, slight modifications,"
as Darwin’s theory requires, since the intermediate steps would have
been non-functional and thus could not have been favored by natural
selection. According to Behe, irreducible complexity points to
intelligent design, rather than Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian biologists have criticized Behe’s view in several
peer-reviewed journals, including Nature, Trends in Ecology and
Evolution and The Quarterly Review of Biology. Yet, peer-reviewed
science journals have consistently refused to publish Behe’s responses
to such criticisms. One journal editor, in refusing to publish one
such response, cited a reviewer who wrote: "In this referee’s
judgment, the manuscript of Michael Behe does not contribute anything
useful to evolutionary science."

When Behe submitted an essay to another biology journal, the editor
wrote back: "As you no doubt know, our journal has supported and
demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning,
and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and
phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such
as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific grounds,
cannot be appropriate for our pages." Since Behe’s essay dealt with
evidence for his position (the hallmark of scientific reasoning), the
phrase "other than scientific grounds" simply reflects the fact that
for this journal, "science" is equated with "evolution."

So the rule is this: A theory such as intelligent design, that
fundamentally challenges Darwinian evolution, is not scientific so it
can’t be published in peer-reviewed science journals; and we know it’s
not scientific because it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed
science journals. Catch-23!

Jonathan Wells holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of
California, Berkeley, and has published articles in several
peer-reviewed science journals. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the
Discovery Institute in Seattle and the author of Icons of Evolution
(2000)

Granted, the following 3 quotes aren't from qualified scientists, but
still interesting. From wikipedia

On 24 December 1968, in what was the most watched television broadcast
to date, the crew of Apollo 8 surpised the world with a reading from
Genesis as they orbited the moon.

William Anders:

"For all the people on Earth the crew of Apollo 8 has a message we
would like to send you.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth
was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the
deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God
said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light,
that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Jim Lovell:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let
there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the
waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the
waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And
the evening and the morning were the second day."

Frank Borman:

"And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God
called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters
called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a
Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you - all of you on the good
Earth."

In closing.

Evolution just didn't seem plausible to me, so I set out to see what I
could learn about it since it wasn't even taught when I was in school.
It turned out that there are reputable scientists who think the same
thing. Wow, I didn't know that. Isn't the internet wonderful.

Some of those scientists attempts at publication have been supressed
or they have been intimidated into silence. This raised some red flags
in my mind.

I also found out that evidence supporting evolution has been faked and
even after discovery, was/is still in use use in textbooks. Uh oh,
more red flags.

The ACLU is a staunch supporter of darwinism, maybe it's just their
anti-God bias showing through. In any case, more red flags!
Ok, this is my worldview showing, I admit it.

With so many red flags popping up, I have to think that there is
something very very wrong here!

Life has taught me over the years that it's generally not wise to
trust bullies, liars, and fools. So, I write off most of what I read
from these "establishment" types as propaganda and consider the
remaing body of evidence.
Remember that term from the 60s, The people who coined the term are
now "the establishment" and if they were to be believed then are now
not to be trusted.

I have never asked that anyone take my word for anything. I have, to
the best of my ability, provided links and references supporting the
position that modern evolution is simply junk science.

The bottom line is that creationism and darwinism are not theories at
all, but are dogmas. Neither of which has been and probably never will
be proved. The difference is that darwinists present their beliefs as
scientific fact and creationists do not. Yes, it's a bit of a
generalization, but for the most part a true statement. There are of
course exceptions on both sides.

Mike

Prof David Albrooke - Univ of Australia
evolution is "a time hononed tennant of faith."

17. ### MikeGuest

Bob Masta, see my previous post first.

As you are fond of saying, complete nonsense.
I'm no scientist, but common sense dictates that if the underlying
processes proposed in support of a theory are in question then the
theory itself must also be in question. How else would one refute a
theory if not by refuting it's proposed underlying processes?

As for your other unsubstantiated allegations, You would need to take
that up with Dr Crick or Dr McLaughlin since Crick died 2004, but not
with me.
Speaking of deluding the ignorant, I believe you have simply restated
what I said with the added assumption that the formation of such
complex molecules commonplace and predictable. This assumption is not
as axiomatic as you would have one believe, but please don't take my
word for it.

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University:
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede
that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
Scientific American, August, 1954.

How is that for scientific reasoning?
He concedes that what you imply was a common and predictable process
is indeed "impossible" yet still "believes" that it happened.

If you care to read about why it is impossible check out the article
at http://evolution-facts.org/new_material.htm and you'll find out
just how difficult it is to get these complex molecules to form. It's
a rather long article and written for HS and college students, but

or for a more rigorous presentation
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm

I hope you don't seriously believe that Dr Crick had the sinister
ulterior motive "to delude the ignorant" when he wrote his book.

These articles only consider the spontaneous creation of protein
molecules and not an immensely more complex living cell, but Dr Walds
comment was referring to a living cell.
Uh Oh, more "complete nonsense"
If anyone really believes the nonsense that there is no debate on
darwinism among legitimate researchers I suggest you google "evolution
debate" and check out some of the about 411,000 hits generated, but be
sure to take a look at this list
http://evolution-facts.org/ScientistsVSDarwin.pdf

Here's another quote probably taken out of context.

Dr Steven J Gould - Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard
University
"There have been more than 100 debates between evolutionist and
creationists. We should stop debating these people(creationists)
because we have lost all 100 of the debates."

An odd thing to say in any context given the "fact" that there is no
debate on darwinism.
I do not claim anything, I simply restate what qualified scientist
Uh, the point was that he gave credit for that 1st living cell to God.
C'mon now, pay attention. Btw means "by the way" and is generally used
to inject a minor point of fact. I have to admit that I suspect you
were aware of my point, ignored it, and concentrated on a point of
trivia just for an opportunity to shoot the messenger. Just a
suspicion mind you.

Interesting though, by your logic, since I studied physics in college
then I would be qualified to formulate a new string theory. An obvious
absurdity!
Oh dear, another declaration of "complete nonsense" with no evidence
supporting it, so ok, explain this:

L. Harrison Matthews (F.R.S.)
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus
in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved
theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of
evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -
both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to
the present, has been capable of proof" - Introduction to The Origin
of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971)

and this

Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum
of Natural History said:- "The evidence we find in the geological
record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as
we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil
species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution
is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of
evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem
has not been alleviated". (Raup, Field museum of Natural History
Bulletin).

and this

"With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the
first time in the fossil record already fully evolved, with most of
their characteristic features present". Dr T S Kemp, Curator of
Zoological collections, Oxford University (Kemp, 1999. Fossils and
evolution, p. 253).

and this

Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to
point out:- "The known fossil record fails to document a single
example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can
be valid." Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San
Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.

and this

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution scientist
in Great Britain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable."
" We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation
and that is unthinkable."

I could go on, but I think these people have made the point.
Indeed a true statement, but alas, you missed the point yet again. You
really need to pay attention. I did not say that the actual
"evolution" should have taken place in the last 150yrs. What I did say
was that no proof that such an evolutionary process has occurred in
the past has been found in the 150 yrs since Darwin wrote the origins.
This is evident from the previous series of statements by reputable
scientists.
You said that the concept of species is "artificial and to some degree
fluid" then give examples of speciation to support evolution.

You refute a concept then use that very concept to support your
position. I'm not sure how that works.
I'll not pretend to be an expert on darwinism, or that I can properly
analyze field research. I must leave that to qualified people.
I simply observe what such people have to say and to some extent, how
they say it. I then base my conclusions on what seems most credible.

There are numerous examples of dissenting views by reputable
scientists, but for some reason these are never mentioned by the
darwinists. One has to wonder why this is.

Some of these scientists have even had their views suppressed by peer
reviewed publications(see excerpt toward the end of this post for an
example). One has to wonder why this is.

You know, to tell you the truth, personally I couldn't care less about
different varieties of fish or flowers that may or may not be
different species. I want to see proof that I came from anything other
than God. As I have already shown, even the most staunch supporters of
darwinism have lamented that such proof does not exist. Even some of
the circumstantial evidence has been shown to have been faked. I refer
you to Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices" toward the end
of this post.
Wait a minute, I thought you said there was no debate. In any case
Google doesn't care. If you search for "irreducible complexity" you'll
get hits for both sides of the non existent debate.
Oops, you missed the point yet again, Go have a cup of coffee then
read it again slowly. I did not say that I do not understand what
"fit" means. What I understand or don't understand is irrelevant. I
did say that blind natural selection cannot know what fits. Which is,
by definition, absolutely true. I know what "fit" means in this
context because I've played poker before and know the desired outcome.
Again, I believe you understood my point, ignored it, and attempted to
refute something I didn't say or even imply.
Do you realize that you tend to make harsh blanket statements with
absolutely no proof presented in support of those statements?
This is not an effective debating technique.

I have attempted to provide evidence in support of my position in the
form of references to articles and books, and what reputable
scientists are saying on the subject. You can accept or deny that
evidence, but at least I presented it.

Btw, the theory is Intelligent design, not creationism.

Note: Btw is used here to inject a MINOR point of fact.

For a list of peer reviewed books and articles supporting the
"so-called theory" of intelligent design go to the link below.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science

Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices".

http://evolution-facts.org/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2796

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2715

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSCStories&id=532

and

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2783

and

Dr Ken Poppe a 30 yr veteran science teacher, was forced to transfer
to a different school because he simply mentioned in an elective class
the fact that the intelligent design theory existed. This may have
simply been the principals fear of the ACLU rather than intellectual
dishonesty.

and

Consider the following excerpt from an article by Dr Jonathan Wells

The pro-Darwin bias in biology journals effectively excludes an
alternative scientific theory such as intelligent design. Michael J.
Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, pointed out in
a 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box, that some features of living things
are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they function only when all of
their parts are in place. Behe reasoned that such features could not
have been assembled by "numerous, successive, slight modifications,"
as Darwin’s theory requires, since the intermediate steps would have
been non-functional and thus could not have been favored by natural
selection. According to Behe, irreducible complexity points to
intelligent design, rather than Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian biologists have criticized Behe’s view in several
peer-reviewed journals, including Nature, Trends in Ecology and
Evolution and The Quarterly Review of Biology. Yet, peer-reviewed
science journals have consistently refused to publish Behe’s responses
to such criticisms. One journal editor, in refusing to publish one
such response, cited a reviewer who wrote: "In this referee’s
judgment, the manuscript of Michael Behe does not contribute anything
useful to evolutionary science."

When Behe submitted an essay to another biology journal, the editor
wrote back: "As you no doubt know, our journal has supported and
demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning,
and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and
phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such
as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific grounds,
cannot be appropriate for our pages." Since Behe’s essay dealt with
evidence for his position (the hallmark of scientific reasoning), the
phrase "other than scientific grounds" simply reflects the fact that
for this journal, "science" is equated with "evolution."

So the rule is this: A theory such as intelligent design, that
fundamentally challenges Darwinian evolution, is not scientific so it
can’t be published in peer-reviewed science journals; and we know it’s
not scientific because it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed
science journals. Catch-23!

Jonathan Wells holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of
California, Berkeley, and has published articles in several
peer-reviewed science journals. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the
Discovery Institute in Seattle and the author of Icons of Evolution
(2000)

In closing:

Evolution just didn't seem plausible to me, so I set out to see what I
could learn about it since it wasn't even taught when I was in school.
It turned out that there are quite a few reputable scientists who have
the same doubts as I do. Wow, I didn't know that. Isn't the internet
wonderful.

Some of those scientists attempts at publication have been suppressed
or they have been intimidated into silence. This raised some red flags
in my mind.

I also found out that evidence supporting evolution has been faked and
even after discovery, was/is still in use in textbooks. Uh oh, more
red flags.

I read irrational statements such the one made by Dr Wald and more red
flags go up.

The ACLU is a staunch supporter of darwinism, maybe it's just their
anti-religion bias showing through. In any case, more red flags!
Ok, this is my world view showing, I admit it.

With so many red flags popping up, I have to think that there is
something very very wrong here!
What are these people so afraid of?
Why do they go to such lengths to silence any opposition to their
position?
Why do they admit to the major problems with evolution yet still
support it even to a dogmatic degree?

One has to wonder why this is.

I believe the reason is that darwinism is not a theory at all, but
rather a dogma and some people will defend their beliefs to the bitter
end using any means at their disposal.
Creationism(not ID) on the other hand, is not and has never been
touted as a scientific theory.
Neither of these dogmas has been and probably never will be proved.
The difference is that darwinists present their beliefs as scientific
fact and creationists do not. Yes, it's a bit of a generalization, but
for the most part a true statement. There are of course exceptions on
both sides.

Mike

Prof David Albrooke - Univ of Australia
evolution is "a time hononed tennant of faith."

18. ### Homer J SimpsonGuest

What defines winning and losing? I cannot teach a pig to whistle, but is
that my fault - or the pig's?

19. ### Bob MastaGuest

I am not familiar with this particular Gould quote, but the situation
he refers to is familiar to those in the field. These "debates"
are invariably hosted by creationists and held with overwhelmingly
creationist audiences. The creationist debater usually has better
oratory skills, probably from a preaching background. And he
certainly knows how to play to his audience. He can pose
"conundrums" for the scientist, which he knows can't be explained
easily to an ignorant audience in the context of the debate format.
The he whips out a disingenuous "aha! gotcha!" that the audience
just loves.

Result: The scientist looks foolish in the eyes of the audience,
which was the whole point of the "debate" in the first place.
Science loses the "debate" in the sense that the creationist
agenda has been furthered, and the audience has not been

There may be no way to educate these people. And they
certainly understand that education is their enemy, which
is why they fight so hard to block science instruction in
public schools. Things look pretty dark for science and
reason these days...

Best regards,

Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator

20. ### MikeGuest

Your ignorance is showing. Irreducible complexity has absolutely nothing to do
with anyoones understanding of anything.

Mike

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal
causation...His religious feeling takes the form of
rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law,
which reveals the intelligence of such superiority
that, compared with it, systematic thinking and acting
of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
Albert Einstein (theoretical physicist)