dailypage home christianity comments creationorevolution Music Son of God Book

Son of God

The Musical

Book!

Son of God Book

INDEX

10 Evolution violates the 1st law of thermodynamic

9 Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics

8 No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record

7 The probability of life, systems, cells, organelles or even proteins appearing spontaneously is so low they must have been designed.

6 Irreducibly complex systems exist and therefore could not have evolved.

5 Evolution is not testable and therefore requires faith like creation.

4 Evolution has not been observed.

3 Speciation (Macroevolution) has never been observed

2 There is evidence against evolution

1 All mutations are bad.

Finally

Top 10 List Why Anti-Evolutionists are WRONG

A Response By Les Sherlock

NOTES

When such tactics as duck-and-dive (avoiding the issue), bait-and-switch (using proof for one thing as evidence for another), elephant hurling (claiming an unsubstantiated or irrelevant mass of evidence), misrepresentation (claiming something is different from what it really is), wishful thinking (unsupported blind faith) and straw-man (distorting an argument in order easily to defeat it) are used as extensively as they are in this You Tube clip,* the weakness of the evolutionist’s case is clearly exposed. If evolution were as scientifically sound as claimed, it would not be necessary to use such evasive methods, and the case creationists really make would be accurately presented and shown to be false.

The clip clearly fails to do this. It presents ten points creationists are supposed to make, each time responding with ‘FALSE’ and then countering the argument. Here they are, with the word ‘false’ corrected. In each case I start by pointing out the tactic used, in brackets.




* If you click on this link it will open in a new window. I suggest you do this and pause the video at the end of each point to compare it with the response on this page.

10 Evolution violates the 1st law of thermodynamic


TRUE

(Duck-and-dive and straw-man) The counter given us to this point is that evolution is only about how life evolved after it began and not about how it started. In other words, “I can’t give an explanation with enough hard evidence to be satisfactory, so I’ll avoid the question!” (Duck and dive.) The point is that evolutionists claim their theory proves God does not exist. This being the case, they then have to prove how the universe could exist without an intelligent entity producing it. Evolution could not take place without a universe in which to do so, therefore the origin of the universe is the first step in the process leading to evolution according to them. The origin of the universe may involve a different scientific discipline to the origin of life, but to claim it is not relevant to evolution is utterly ridiculous.

The illustration to support this claim is that the music at a concert does not depend on how the musicians got to the hall (straw-man). This is true, of course, but it is not relevant. A more apt illustration would be a biology teacher explaining how a baby develops in the womb from a single fertilised egg, but when asked, “How did the egg get there?” replying, “That is not relevant!” It is nonsense!


Evolution is used by many atheists to prove that God does not exist, since, they say, life could emerge and develop spontaneously. Therefore it is perfectly valid for the creationist to ask them [a] how the sphere of existence of living things (the universe) evolved - how it could have created itself in other words,* and [b] how the process of evolution of life could have begun, if a Creator does not exist.

The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy of a system always remains constant. Yet the Big Bang has all the matter of the universe appearing from the energy created from nothing in that event, which is as far away from the total energy of a system remaining constant as you could ever get! Then it has energy and matter travelling faster than the speed of light in order for the universe to be the size it is now. The only response to these conflicts with the fundamental laws we observe is ‘singularity’ and ‘inflation’: these laws did not apply at that time. How convenient! Yet if creationists were to claim ‘singularity’ because of the intervention of the Creator, they would claim “Foul,” and say this is an argument based on faith not science. Pot calling kettle, “Black!”

There is no naturalistic theory of the formation of the universe that does not have serious scientific problems – observations that contradict the theory. For example, most scientists believe it began with the Big Bang, therefore believing that all other explanations are scientifically unsound. However, there is a significant body of evolution-believing scientists who believe the Big Bang is not a valid explanation.*

In The New Scientist, May 22, 2004, was published a ‘Cosmology Statement’ complaining that virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies, when the theory only survives through a number of ‘fudge factors’. It then appeared on the Internet and was signed by a large number of scientists across the world. The original page has now disappeared, but at the time of writing this page, the statement can be seen here, and begins:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

In a lecture I attended, given by Valerie Calderbank FRAS, she began, after telling us that the Big Bang Theory was the best explanation of the universe’s origin there is, by saying with reference to what she was about to tell us,

"If we get a better theory, then all this will be thrown away,"

…which proves that at best it is an unproven hypothesis, based on the belief that no kind of Intelligent Designer exists and therefore there can only be a naturalistic explanation for origins. So it’s foundation is not scientific observation, but the religious belief that God does not exist.

There is no naturalistic theory for life to emerge spontaneously from inanimate matter supported either by any kind of scientific observation, or even by any viable theoretical series of events that could produce such a thing, which stands up to logic and does not violate the second law of thermodynamics - see the next point.

TOP


* Which is a contradiction of the first law. See here for further details on the first law of thermodynamics.








* The big bang theory is unobservable, untestable, unfalsifyable and therefore unscientific. It must be believed by faith as there is no physical observation that can prove it. In the publication New Scientist, 30 June 2012, (here) the cover article by New Scientist consultant Amanda Gefter, “What Kind of Bang was the Big Bang?” describes some serious problems with the present theories of the origin of the universe on page 35:

“We thought that inflation predicted a smooth, flat universe,” says Paul Steinhardt of Princetown University, a pioneer of inflation who has become a vocal detractor. “Instead it predicts every possibility an infinite number of times. We’re back to square one.” Tegmark ** agrees: “Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed.”

** Max Tegmark, cosmologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


9 Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics


TRUE

(Misrepresentation and wishful thinking) The claim here is that the decreasing order of the sun enables increasing order on the Earth, with the accusation that creationists fail to mention the 2nd law only applies to closed systems, while the sun is part of our system; concluding with a sarcastic “Oops!”

This is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the laws of physics. When a bomb explodes there is a significant amount of energy introduced into a ‘system’, but the result is always an increase in disorderliness. The sun is effectively a huge ‘bomb’ in a continuous state of explosion. The reasons this does not create damage to the Earth are [a] because we are so far away, and [b] the magnetic field around the Earth deflects the harmful radiation:* were it not for this shield all life on Earth would be destroyed. This proves that more than the sun is necessary, since without the shield the sun’s energy would still be reaching the Earth, but it would end life, not maintain it.

On the other hand a car engine operates as a result of a rapid series of small explosions as tiny parts of its fuel are ignited. The energy from these explosions does useful work, but only as the result of the intelligent design of a system capable of harnessing it.






* The magnetic field is decreasing in power such that, if it continues at the present rate, within a matter of a few hundred years at most it will be too weak to deflect this radiation and all life on Earth will cease.

The sun could shine on a car for a million years, but it would not move until fuel was put in its tank. This fuel had its beginnings in vegetation that was able to utilise the sun’s energy during the time it was alive. So every car moves by the power of the sun, but the sun’s energy has had to be transformed by sophisticated processes into a form it can use. The sun’s power alone is not enough.


The sun could shine on the Earth for all of eternity, it would do absolutely nothing unless there were systems on the Earth to harness its energy and turn it into something useful. Primarily the highly sophisticated systems of photosynthesis in trees, plants, etc., change the energy from the sun into energy they can use to grow and develop. In turn, creatures that are unable to use the energy directly from the sun themselves, eat vegetation and then are able to benefit from it indirectly by digesting that vegetation. Creatures that eat other creatures that eat vegetation are then also able to benefit indirectly from the sun’s energy.

The sun could have done nothing to create abiogensis,* since before living things were present there were no systems on Earth able to turn its energy into something useful.

The sun could do absolutely nothing to direct evolution: it can and does only produce energy to maintain the existence of living things that either directly (through photosynthesis), or indirectly (through eating things that use photosynthesis), can utilise it. It can never do anything to increase the specified complexity of the genomes of these living things. It does nothing to prevent entropy* in them – they still experience negative mutations (which are then passed on to future generations), aging, disease and injuries.

TOP





* Inanimate matter turning into a living organism.




* Entropy is the measurement of the change of systems from a higher state of complexity to a lower one. It is one of the most basic laws of science. See here for more detail.

8 No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record


TRUE

(Misrepresentation) In support of the claim that transitional forms have been found, we are given the usual handful of disputed examples, supposedly demonstrating human, tetrapod and whale evolution, some of which in this clip are part fossil and part made up, and some are just drawings. However, this simply does not cut the mustard, as they say.

Firstly, it would be possible to take the skulls of different human types living around the world today (Australian aborigine,* African, Oriental, European, etc.) and different ape types (orang-utan, chimpanzee, gorilla, etc.) lay them out and demonstrate a line of ‘succession’ with the claim they gradually formed the one from the other. But they would all either be 100% human or 100% ape, which is the case with the specimens presented in the You Tube clip.

One also has to bear in mind the significant change that takes place in an ape’s skull as it grows up – an infant chimp’s face is very much closer to resembling that of a human’s than when it becomes an adult. So, for example, using evolutionists’ millions of years, if an adult chimp’s skull was fossilised two million years ago, then every twenty thousand years or so after that the skulls of increasingly younger chimps of an identical species were fossilised, an evolutionist retrieving them today could easily assume he had found chimps evolving into humans.





* Only around 100 years ago, Australian aborigines were hunted, killed and their bodies displayed in museums around the world as examples of ‘the missing link’.

Of course, one would expect that today’s scientists would not make such a mistake, the illustration simply serving to demonstrate there could be reasons better than evolutionary theory for the quoted handful of fossilised remains appearing the way they do. However, the track record for identifying fossils is not one to give confidence this kind of mistake would not happen. In fact exactly that mistake has certainly been made, because we are now told that up to one third of all dinosaurs might never have existed: their fossilised remains are simply the young versions of other species! So, for example, Mussaurus was a baby Coloradisaurus; Nanotyrannus was a young T. Rex; Dracorex and Strygimoloch were just juvenile forms of Pachycephalosaurus.*

Secondly, the massive number of mutations required for the mythical common ancestor to evolve into modern ape and man would be enormous – many thousands at the very least (see The Challenge). That is, many thousands of populations of different ‘species’ (see later), not merely many thousands of individuals. So the fact that only a comparatively tiny few different fossils have been found is evidence it didn’t happen in the first place and that they are simply mislabelled!





* Information from Creation Ministries International. See here for further details, and National Geographic and Physorg.com for confirmation.

Thirdly, with such an enormous amount of massive change required to progress even the comparatively small amount from the common ancestor to modern apes and man, and this change clearly supposed to be continuing throughout all forms of life on Earth, it is obvious that we should be able to see a large number of transitional forms living and developing on the Earth today. Where are they? There is not one anyone has ever been able to find that gives evidence of an organ at a part-way stage of development from one thing to another; no legs part-way changing to wings; no scales, part-way changing to feathers; no lungs part-way changing from the two-way bellows system used by mammals to the one-way system of birds;* no fish with partly developed lungs so they can transfer from sea to land; no whales with partly developed gills as their evolution continues from living on land to living in the sea.

Of course, the evolutionist would claim this is because all creatures, as they evolve, must be an improvement on what went before, therefore there will be no part-way features that are recognisable as part-way – they will all be fully-functional. This, of course, denies their claim that all evolutionary development is very gradual. The complex systems we see all around us cannot develop gradually, since many aspects of them are interdependent on each other. But then evolutionists deny the existence of irreducible complexity too. So they want to have their cake and be able to eat it! They insist that every complex system has developed in tiny stages, but at the same time every stage is fully functional, when it can clearly be seen that such gradual steps could not possibly function throughout the development of, for example, forelegs to wings (for many thousands of years the limbs would be neither good for walking nor flying). This principle applies to every organ in the body.

Fourthly, it is noticed that the Tiktaalik is included in the list. This is surely an embarrassment: evolutionists have been dogmatically telling us that the Tiktaalik is the first transitional form that left the sea and took to the land. However, now footprints have been discovered, dated 18 million years earlier (by evolutionary reckoning) than the Tiktaalik’s appearance (see here). So now they have to revise their dates yet again, since it is obvious that footprints could not appear before there were any land creatures to make them, and they have no transitional sea/land creatures dated to the time of the footprints. But then, this is standard practice: the history of evolutionary theory is that it is based on ‘evidence’ that is later shown to be false and substituted with other ‘evidence’ that is later shown to be false and substituted with other ‘evidence’ that is later shown to be false and substituted with… well, you get the picture.

TOP





* Or vice versa

7 The probability of life, systems, cells, organelles or even proteins appearing spontaneously is so low they must have been designed.

TRUE

(Wishful thinking and misrepresentation) The reply in the You Tube clip to this point is that stuff does not spontaneously appear, but evolves in small steps. But, as previously stated, this is impossible. The smallest living organism known to man, capable of independent life and able to reproduce, Pelagibacter, has 1,308,759 nucleotides, with 1,354 protein genes and 35 RNA genes. How many small steps did it take to produce Pelagibacter? How could any ancestor, with significantly smaller DNA exist? Evolutionists come up with all sorts of notions but cannot produce a scrap of scientific evidence to support them. Every scientific observation ever made has demonstrated that while it may be possible for Pelagibacter to survive without a few of its nucleotides, significantly reducing its complexity in the way required by evolution would make its existence impossible.


The first part of the statement in point 7 is the probability of life appearing spontaneously. How could small steps accumulate to produce the first living cell? Natural selection can only operate on living things, and there were no living things around at that time! So the illustration showing how easy it is to win a 6-ball lotto with 10 numbers when each correct ball is fixed, is completely irrelevant.

However it is also irrelevant to living things as well. In the lotto example you can have very small steps fixed – one ball at a time – but in living things every small step has to be fully functional and an improvement on what has gone before. It is impossible to achieve this like the lotto balls, by changing nucleotides one at a time. For one thing it would take far too long – even by evolutionary standards there simply is not enough time for all the change to take place.* But primarily, changing one nucleotide at a time would not produce enough improvement for every single step to be favoured by natural selection, and in many cases would decrease the operation of a function affected by the changing element, which would therefore be discarded by natural selection.

With lotto balls the intermediate stages are irrelevant, because intelligent design has a target in mind and is keeping the changes that will lead to the target. Natural selection can never act in this way – it can’t have a future target in mind, but can only act on what is present. It will certainly discard the worst and save the best, but since mutation takes place in every individual, it cannot eliminate it completely in any way, and while most of these mutations appear to be neutral, the accumulation of all these ‘neutral’ mutations ultimately leads to ‘bad’ mutation. For example, you can take a photocopy of a photocopy and it will be a pretty good representation of the original. But if you continue to take copies of the copies, ultimately you will have an image that is unrecognisable. Observation has proved that human DNA is deteriorating as a result of all this mutation, and natural selection is powerless to do anything to stop it. Doctors tell us that over 1,000 human ailments are the result of mutation.* This is exactly what is predicted by creation (which states that living things can only deteriorate and never increase in complexity), and the opposite of that required by evolution (which claims that things can improve and increase in complexity).

TOP






* There are over three billion nucleotides in the human DNA. See The Challenge for more details.







* Which, of course, is the observation of entropy. It is one of the most basic laws of science. See here for more detail about entropy.

6 Irreducibly complex systems exist and therefore could not have evolved.

TRUE

(Misrepresentation and wishful thinking) The You Tube clip claim in response to this argument is that it is based on ignorance – just because you don’t know how it could happen you therefore claim it could not have happened. Of course, if a creationist were to respond to an evolutionist’s argument like this, he would be ridiculed. Evolutionists require every argument of a creationist to be scientific and based on evidence and logic, and tell them it is not good enough to say, “I don’t know how it happened, but one day we will do.” Yet this is the evolutionists’ last-resort argument for the origin of life, because it is unobserved, contrary to every relevant law of science, and no-one can give any rational idea how it took place.


We are told that many systems previously thought to have been irreducibly complex have since been shown to have many functional intermediates. The example given is the eye. However, what we are given is not showing the intermediates, as is claimed, but presenting a theoretical series of stages. However, each of those stages is by no means the step-by-step ‘lotto ball’ development. We are blithely told we start with a photo sensitive cell. How many nucleotides have to change into the correct sequence in order for a skin cell to become photo sensitive? Far more than the one-at-a-time development required by evolution.


But it is not enough just for a skin cell to become photo sensitive. There has to be the nervous system in place to connect that cell to the brain. There have to be the correct receptors in the brain to accept the messages coming from the cell. The brain, which previously had never processed light information in this species, has to be capable of now doing so. In other words, even the simple photo sensitive cell is a part of an irreducibly complex system, all of which has to be in place simultaneously in order for it to have enough of a function for natural selection to preserve it.

The idea of an eye evolving from a photo sensitive cell ignores a real problem: by necessity, the nerves would be behind such a cell. But as pointed out by evolutionists, who erroneously claim they are wired backwards, the nerves for our eyes are in front. So how and why did the nerves migrate from the back (which they claim is the best position) to the front (which they say is the worst) during the course of its evolution?


Can a photo sensitive cell suddenly appear in a species that has never before had any kind of vision? Where is the evidence that it can? There is none. It has never been observed. We just have to believe it happened because evolution requires it to have done so (wishful thinking). Therefore it is unobservable and untestable (see next point) – we have to accept it by faith. The idea is unscientific because it is unobserved and untested.

The other examples in the clip of irreducibly complex systems claimed as having viable step-by-step stages fall into the same category as the eye for exactly the same reasons. The claimed stages, even if they were viable (which is doubtful) would require mutations far larger and more complex than random processes could ever produce. For example, see here for more on the flagellum.

TOP


5 Evolution is not testable and therefore requires faith like creation.

This is both FALSE and TRUE, depending on the angle taken.

(Straw-man and misrepresentation) While some claims made by evolutionists are untestable (for example, the evolution of the eye, as we have just seen), evolution itself is certainly testable: if inanimate matter turned into a living cell, then evolution would be proven; if unambiguous, transitional forms with partially developed features were discovered, either living or fossilised, evolution would be proven; if there were a scientific theory for the formation of the universe without any conflicting evidence against it and observable scientific processes capable of it, evolution would be proven; if mutation could be seen to increase the specified complexity of DNA such that new features, never previously seen in a species, began to form, evolution would be proven; if complex, intelligent information could be seen to appear by random processes, evolution would be proven. These are testable areas and in every case evolution fails the test.


It is true to say, however, that evolution is not observable, and therefore requires faith to believe it. So the claim that every new fossil, every new genome sequence, etc., is a test that proves evolution is fact, is actually completely false. Indeed, every advance in understanding the incredible complexity of the genome and how species interact is further evidence for this. It is this ever-increasing amount of evidence against evolution that is the reason for the ever-increasing number of scientists leaving their beliefs in it behind and accepting that creation is the only possible explanation for origins.*

It is only partly true that faith is required to believe in creation. Certainly there is an element of faith required in order to accept the God of the Bible, but the vast amount of scientific evidence in all branches of science is clear, objective evidence that there is no viable alternative to creation.

The pre-Cambrian chicken idea, an old chestnut, is ludicrous. One might just as easily ask why we don’t find the fossil of a rabbit amongst trilobites. The creationists’ case is that the fossils are mostly the result of the world-wide flood and its aftermath. Therefore they are found where they were buried. Because the habitat of rabbits is on land and of trilobites is on the sea bed, it is obvious they would not be found together. But the finding of footprints, dated by evolutionist reckoning to be 18 million years earlier than the Tiktaalik, which is supposed to be the transitional form for the first living things to leave the sea and take to land, is certainly the equivalent of a pre-Cambrian chicken – so are evolutionists now going to accept they were wrong? Of course, not – their faith is too bound up in the theory, so they will find some excuse to get around the problem.

TOP




* A classic example being Antony Flew, British Oxford professor and philosopher, who, after over 50 years as an atheist, renounced this belief in 2004 in response to the clear evidence for intelligent design.

4 Evolution has not been observed.


TRUE

(Bait and switch) We are told that evolution has been observed at all levels, but all the examples given are of natural selection, not evolution as defined in the title of Darwin’s book.* So, for example, wolves changing into dogs have produced no new genetic information – an essential element for evolution to take place. All that has happened is that genetic information specific to wolves has been lost from the dogs’ genome, and such mutations as may have taken place could never accumulate into information for features not seen in the species and therefore produce a totally new kind of creature. This is looking at natural selection (bait) and labelling it ‘evolution’ (switch).

HIV is another clear example of natural selection. The kind of change observed is of the same category as that seen in wolves to dogs, variation in finches, etc. and could continue for billions of years but it would never produce a different kind of virus. Since HIV was first observed, there have been more generations and more ‘individuals’ than could ever have existed in all the world’s mammals, even by evolutionist reckoning of millions of years. It is still HIV. It has not even begun to change into anything else. If HIV, with a much smaller genome (which can therefore go through every combination of nucleotides in its DNA much more quickly), has not progressed into any different kind of living thing, then mammals certainly could not.

TOP



* Natural selection is the shuffling of existing DNA information (so no increase in specified complexity) or damage to it (a decrease in specified complexity). Evolution requires the increase of DNA information to code for new features not previously seen in a species (an increase in specified complexity). The two are therefore opposite processes, although evolutionists are constantly giving examples of natural selection as evidence of evolution. However, even Richard Dawkins accepts they are different processes. See here.

3 Speciation (Macroevolution) has never been observed


FALSE

(Straw-man, bait-and-switch) The creationist argument is not that speciation has never been observed: clearly it has. So the examples given demonstrating speciation are totally irrelevant – they simply demonstrate what creationists accept. This point is based on the fallacy that creationists claim there has been no change to any living thing since the creation, and is therefore a straw-man argument. However, the clear implication from the examples is that because these species have changed, therefore all species could evolve from a common ancestor (bait-and-switch). The creationist position is that the kind of change observed in these (and other) examples, could never create a totally new kind of creature with features not present in the original species.

We are then given the claim that creationists have moved the target, by referring to ‘kind’. The word comes from the book of Genesis, where we are told God made everything after its own kind. Christian creationists, describing origins from the book of Genesis, have therefore been using this word for about 2,000 years, so if the creator of this You Tube clip didn’t know about it, this says more about his/her ignorance of the subject than it does about creationists moving the target. On the other hand, if he/she did know about it, then why is he/she talking about ‘moving the target’?


We are told that ‘kind’ is not a scientific term. But then, the Bible is not a book of science – rather it is a book of history (amongst other things) – so one would not expect it to use 21st century scientific terms. This does not mean that therefore it is inaccurate however (any more than it means that history books are always incorrect and scientific ones are always correct), and more and more discoveries are proving this: in areas where it was previously claimed the Bible was historically wrong, it has now been vindicated.*

One expects scientific terms to be precise, and relating to a specific point. The categorisation of living things into Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species has great value for scientists studying the subject. However, the one thing it does not do is show where the boundary lies regarding the limitation of change that is possible and observable. The word ‘kind’ does precisely that. In an accompanying You Tube clip, along with ludicrous straw-man arguments regarding the creationists’ understanding of ‘kind’, is the complaint that creationists never define ‘kind’, so let me do it here:

A single kind is every species, past, present and future, that can trace its ancestry back to the same breeding pair God created during the creation week. (This is assuming He only created one pair of each kind – if He created more than one pair, then ‘breeding pair’ refers to all life forms capable of interbreeding at the time they were created).




* For example, see here for validation of the book of Jeremiah.

Relating this to the classification system mentioned in the previous paragraph shows that a species may, through loss of genetic information and mutation, change into a different, closely related species, but could never change into a different Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order or Family.

The only flightless cormorant is classified in the genus Nannopterum, while all other cormorants are of the genus Phalacrocorax. Note: this change is the result of a loss of information, not an increase, so in no way demonstrates Darwinian evolution; but it does probably show that a change of closely-related genus is the limit to which change can take place, no matter how many billions of generations come and go.

This is based on what can be observed and tested, rather than the theoretical world inhabited by evolutionists, where anything can happen, given a few million years here or there.

TOP


2 There is evidence against evolution


TRUE

(Elephant hurling) We are told of over 200,000 peer-reviewed papers in the last century as evidence for evolution. Presumably this includes those telling us that we have over 100 vestigial organs in our bodies (we now know there is a function for all of them); or that Piltdown man is conclusive evidence of man’s evolution from a common ancestor with the apes (believed by scientists for about 40 years until it was exposed as a hoax in 1953 – see here); or that Neanderthal man is a transitional species between the common ancestor and modern man, and Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa (DNA evidence tells that there is less difference between Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens than there is between any two chimps, and that Neanderthals never lived in Africa - see here); or that 95% of our DNA is junk (when recent scientific evidence proves the contrary - see here).

The fact is that through the brain-washing that is begun in schools and continued in universities declaring evolution to be scientific fact, and the black-listing of any scientist* who dares to put his head above the parapet and cast doubt on the notion, it is not surprising that a large number of scientists are unaware of the true facts of the case and are taken in by either fraudulent or mistaken claims of evolutionary evidence such as those (and many more) just mentioned. Added to which is the hugely distorted straw-man presentation of creationism from fanatical atheists like Dawkins and the producer of this You Tube clip. However, I suspect that the vast majority of the quoted number of 200,000 papers has no relevance to the subject of evolution whatsoever.

Not a single piece of evidence that is counter to evolution? A clear case of burying one’s head in the sand! While evolutionists like the producer of this clip refuse to consider objectively the case presented by the ever-increasing number of scientists who are creationists, they will continue to make these wild and unsubstantiated claims.

TOP








* For example see here for details of the experience of Walter ReMine, author of The Biotic Message, whose paper on Haldane’s Dilemma has been refused by scientific journals in spite of positive peer-review feedback. His work, which demonstrates the impossibility for the huge amount of change to produce modern humans and apes from a common ancestor within any evolutionary timeframe, is being deliberately repressed because of the challenge it brings to evolutionary dogma.

1 All mutations are bad.


FALSE? TRUE?

(Straw-man, bait-and-switch) What is meant by ‘bad’? We are given examples of ‘good’ mutations, by which it is meant that advantage has been conferred on the species. Creationists have no problem with this, so to imply they do is yet another straw-man argument. There are a number of clear examples where mutation has given survival advantage (which could therefore be called ‘good’), and is therefore preserved by natural selection. But to present those as evolution is the typical bait-and-switch argument and is completely wrong.

The creationist case is that mutation is always a reduction in the specified complexity of the DNA (which is ‘bad’ for evolution, but in some cases ‘good’ for the survival of the species), and while the immediate effect of such a mutation in most cases may not appear to have any effect, our knowledge of the operation of DNA is in its infancy and as yet we do not know the long term accumulative effects of such changes. However, where mutation does have an effect, it is always to reduce the efficiency or effectiveness of some system, and while in some cases this will be an advantage, it is never-the-less ‘downhill’ change. Drug resistance, for example, is often a reduction in the ability to ingest certain substances – a clear advantage when those substances are fatal to the species, but it is still quite obviously a loss of information and not a gain. We have yet to be given any example of mutation creating new information in the DNA that is a clear ‘uphill’ step toward a novel organ or function in a species.

TOP


Finally


The clip concludes with two quotes. The first would perhaps be more appropriately addressed to evolutionists:

“Minds are like parachutes: they both work best when open.”

If only they would open their closed minds to creationism, and consider the arguments properly instead of dismissing them out of hand as in this You Tube clip, then they would see immediately the lack of logic in, and the unscientific nature of, their theory.

TOP