Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

[center][/center]
Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two at any stage would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.a

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical,b and electricalc compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.d

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally� evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents� must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.e

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction.f But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. For example, Why do human females live past menopause? If there is no potential for reproduction, then according to evolution, there is no evolutionary reason to exist.

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.g

a . In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body� from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,� mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b . N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,� Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c . Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,� Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

u “When egg meets sperm in mammals, zinc sparks fly. ... [They] are needed to stimulate the transition from egg to embryo.� Ashley Yeager, “Images Reveal Secrets of Zinc Sparks,� Science News, Vol. 187, 10 January 2015, p. 14.

d . For example, how could meiosis evolve?

e . “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.� Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop,� Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f . “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.� George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

u “So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams, 1975; John Maynard Smith, 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.� Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

u “The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.� Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,� New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

u “Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.� Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?� Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

u “Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.� Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,� Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

u “From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?� Nilsson, p. 1225.

u “One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.� [According to evolution, it should not.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?� Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g . “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.� Pitman, p. 135.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp5214829

[Zzyzx]

.

Since the Bible was authored by God, how can it be wrong?

"Authored by God"?

That is quite a claim. If anyone considers that a true statement, kindly provide substantiating evidence (something more than "the Bible says so" or "Christians say so" or "I think so").

The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

Do “fulfilled prophesies� provide substantiating evidence that the Bible was “authored by God�? Explain.

What are the earliest existing copies of the Bible written? Hint: 325 CE

When were the “prophesies� supposedly made? Hint: Hundreds or thousands of years earlier

Who recorded the “prophesies�? Hint: Unknown

Who described the “fulfillment�? Hint: Unknown

THAT is evidence that God authored the Bible? Perhaps it would be prudent to check with Christian scholars and theologians about the above dates and people.

Is it POSSIBLE that “prophesies� and “fulfillment� were not recorded accurately?

If someone says "A long time ago so-and-so predicted this" is that "fulfillment"?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 70 by Pahu]

It doesn't. The interpretations are different.

This means you've placed the Bible on a pedestal, above any and all criticism. You don't allow for it. You've declared it error free, infallible, and even when I show multiple people reading it and walking away with different beliefs...no it's not the Bible that's wrong, it's the people.
What you're doing is intellectual dishonesty, which is a big no no in debate. It is not fair on debate opponents to protect the book in question from any and all critique.
There's no point in us talking if all you're going to say is "Here's a list of fulfilled prophecies, the Bible is error free and at no point can the Bible ever be wrong, it's the interpretations that are wrong".
At what point do you allow for yourself to be wrong, there? At what point do you stop preaching, and start debating?

[Pahu]

.

Since the Bible was authored by God, how can it be wrong?

"Authored by God"?

That is quite a claim. If anyone considers that a true statement, kindly provide substantiating evidence (something more than "the Bible says so" or "Christians say so" or "I think so").

The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

Do “fulfilled prophesies� provide substantiating evidence that the Bible was “authored by God�? Explain.

Only God can accurately predict the future.

What are the earliest existing copies of the Bible written? Hint: 325 CE

In 1947 the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran pushed the manuscript history of the Tanakh back a millennium from the two earliest complete codices. Before this discovery, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Old Testament were in Greek in manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Out of the roughly 800 manuscripts found at Qumran, 220 are from the Tanakh. Every book of the Tanakh is represented except for the Book of Esther; however, most are fragmentary. Notably, there are two scrolls of the Book of Isaiah, one complete (1QIsa), and one around 75% complete (1QIsb). These manuscripts generally date between 150 BC to 70 AD.

When were the “prophesies� supposedly made? Hint: Hundreds or thousands of years earlier

Who recorded the “prophesies�? Hint: Unknown

Who described the “fulfillment�? Hint: Unknown

Each prophecy was written by the named prophet such as Isaiah, Daniel, etc.

THAT is evidence that God authored the Bible?

Yes!

Perhaps it would be prudent to check with Christian scholars and theologians about the above dates and people.

I have.

Is it POSSIBLE that “prophesies� and “fulfillment� were not recorded accurately?

No!

If someone says "A long time ago so-and-so predicted this" is that "fulfillment"?

Yes. Here is just one very specific prophecy you may find interesting:

Tyre's mainland would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:7-9
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: 570 BC

In Ezekiel 26:7-9, the prophet said the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the mainland of Tyre.
Six years later, the Babylonians began a 10-year siege of Tyre.
It lasted from 580 BC to 570 BC. (Alexander the Great later destroyed the island portion of Tyre, in 332 BC).

Tyre would lose its power over the sea
Bible passage: Zechariah 9:3-4
Written: Between 520 and 518 BC
Fulfilled: 570 BC

In Zechariah 9:3-4, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would lose its status as a powerful nation on the Mediterranean Sea. Today there is a city called Tyre that is near, the original Phoenician site. But this Tyre is a small city in modern-day Lebanon. It is certainly not the powerful nation that it was in the days of Zechariah.

Tyre would never be rebuilt
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:14
Written: Between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: 332 BC

In Ezekiel 26:14, the prophet says the Phoenician city of Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. This was fulfilled when Alexander the Great conquered Tyre in 332 BC. His conquest brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The empire never recovered from the attack. And so, it could never rebuild Tyre. Other nations and empires have built cities on or near the original Phoenician site.

Tyre would never again be found
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:21
Written: Between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: after 332 BC to the present

In Ezekiel 26:21, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be brought to an end and would never again be found. When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of world powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town."

Tyre would be attacked by many nations
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:3
Written: Between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: 573 BC, 332 BC, AD 1291

In Ezekiel 26:3, the prophet said that Tyre, the Phoenician Empire's most powerful city, would be attacked by many nations, because of its treatment of Israel. At about the time that Ezekiel delivered this prophecy, Babylon had begun a 13-year attack on Tyre's mainland. Later, in about 332 BC, Alexander the Great conquered the island of Tyre and brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. Tyre later fell under the rule of the Romans, the Crusaders and the Moslems, who destroyed the city, again, in 1291.

Tyre would be scraped and made bare
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:4
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: 333 BC

In Ezekiel 26:4, the prophet said the buildings of Tyre would be ripped down and that the rubble would be scraped away.
This happened in two stages.
The Babylonians destroyed the mainland of Tyre during an attack that ended in 573 BC.
Then, Alexander the Great attacked the island of Tyre in 333-332 BC.
Alexander's army scraped the rubble from the mainland and tossed it into the sea, building a land bridge to the island to conquer it.
During the centuries after Alexander's conquest of Tyre, the Greeks, Romans, Crusaders and Moslems came to the area of Tyre and put up their own buildings near the site of the original Phoenician Tyre.
In doing this, the workers would have had to remove rubble from the original Phoenician Tyre.

Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be cast into the sea
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:12
Written: Between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: 333-332 BC

In Ezekiel 26:12, the prophet said that Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be thrown into the sea. That probably would have been a fitting description of how Alexander the Great built a land bridge from the mainland to the island of Tyre when he attacked in 333-332 BC. It is believed that he took the rubble from Tyre's mainland ruins and tossed it - stones, timber and soil - into the sea, to build the land bridge (which is still there).

Tyre would be a place for the spreading of fishnets
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:5
Written: between 587-586
Fulfilled: 332 BC to present

In Ezekiel 26:5, the prophet said about Tyre; “Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets.�
After Alexander destroyed the island part of Tyre in 332 BC and scraped away her rubble and made her a bare rock (v 4), the site became a place for the spreading of fishnets from that time to the present.

Tyre's fortresses would fail
Bible passage: Amos 1:9-10
Written: About 750 BC
Fulfilled: 333-332 BC

In Amos 1:9-10, the prophet said that God would cause Tyre's protective fortresses to fail, as punishment for the way that Tyre treated Israel. That prophecy was fulfilled in 586-573 BC when Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland of Tyre, and in 333-332 BC when Alexander the Great conquered the island of Tyre. Alexander's army built a land bridge from the mainland to the island so that they could use a battering ram to break through the island's fortress.

[Pahu]

[Replying to post 70 by Pahu]

It doesn't. The interpretations are different.

This means you've placed the Bible on a pedestal, above any and all criticism. You don't allow for it. You've declared it error free, infallible, and even when I show multiple people reading it and walking away with different beliefs...no it's not the Bible that's wrong, it's the people.

Right. Since the Bible was authored by God, it is error free.

What you're doing is intellectual dishonesty, which is a big no no in debate. It is not fair on debate opponents to protect the book in question from any and all critique.

What is intellectually dishonest about sharing the truth?

There's no point in us talking if all you're going to say is "Here's a list of fulfilled prophecies, the Bible is error free and at no point can the Bible ever be wrong, it's the interpretations that are wrong".

What is wrong with that?

At what point do you allow for yourself to be wrong, there? At what point do you stop preaching, and start debating?

I suspect I am wrong about many things. I am not preaching, I am just sharing the facts logic leads to.

[Pahu]

[center]The Law of Biogenesis
[/center]

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). Others are aware of just how complex life is and the many failed and foolish attempts to explain how life came from non-life. They duck the question by claiming that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.� George Wald, “The Origin of Life,� Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“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.�   Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.�   Ibid., p. 48.

In 1954, when Wald wrote the above, the genetic code had not been discovered. No one could have appreciated just how complex life is. Today, after more discoveries of complexity, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. [See pages 15-22] Unfortunately, generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our schools that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker�) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists think show vast time periods.

Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.� J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From “In the Beginning� by Walt Brown]

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 75 by Pahu]

The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Uhh...we went through this with god knows how many other people.
Evolution, the theory of, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the origins of life.
Please stop taking all your cues from creationist websites. Evolution says NOTHING about life coming from non-living matter.

Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred.

Yes, because evolution is about the diversity, or variation, of life. It does not speak as to the origin of life. That's a separate subject.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

The argument against spontaneous generation only makes sense if one thinks that 'life' can only have one try, one flip of a coin or one roll of a dice.


------
Pahu. Say it after me. The theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Do not repeat the mistakes of so many others on this site and elsewhere, by conflating the two.

[Pahu]

[Replying to post 75 by Pahu]

The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Uhh...we went through this with god knows how many other people.
Evolution, the theory of, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the origins of life.
Please stop taking all your cues from creationist websites. Evolution says NOTHING about life coming from non-living matter.

Was not Darwin an evolutionist? Did he not suggest life started from a warm pond?

Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred.

Yes, because evolution is about the diversity, or variation, of life. It does not speak as to the origin of life. That's a separate subject.

Do you believe life was created?

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

The argument against spontaneous generation only makes sense if one thinks that 'life' can only have one try, one flip of a coin or one roll of a dice.

And yet no one has ever been able to create life from non-life, have they?


------

Pahu. Say it after me. The theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Do not repeat the mistakes of so many others on this site and elsewhere, by conflating the two.

They why do evolutionists refer to that beginning?

[Zzyzx]

.

The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Uhh...we went through this with god knows how many other people.

Evolution, the theory of, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the origins of life.
Please stop taking all your cues from creationist websites. Evolution says NOTHING about life coming from non-living matter.

Some Apologists are beginning to learn that they can no longer deny that evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs – as when bacteria become antibiotic resistant / immune –GENETICALLY.

They may then revert to “you don't know how life began� while acting as though (or claiming) that they DO know how life began after reading ancient texts and listening to sermons.

OR, some try "A little bit of change can occur but no big changes" -- without being able to say WHY that would be true or to cite any mechanism by which the amount of change is limited.

A last resort may be "The Earth is only 10,000 (or whatever) years old" so big changes could not have occurred -- without any means of demonstrating that the Earth is of that age -- only citing ancient texts written by people "who didn't know where the sun went at night".

Was not Darwin an evolutionist?

Darwin was a pioneer in researching the ideas of evolution (genetic change through generations).

Did he not suggest life started from a warm pond?

No he did not.

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. However, analysis of some other texts written by Darwin, and of the correspondence he exchanged with friends and colleagues demonstrates that he took for granted the possibility of a natural emergence of the first life forms. As shown by notes from the pages he excised from his private notebooks, as early as 1837 Darwin was convinced that “the intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable�. Like many of his contemporaries, Darwin rejected the idea that putrefaction of preexisting organic compounds could lead to the appearance of organisms. Although he favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

Bold and underline added.

Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred.

Yes, because evolution is about the diversity, or variation, of life. It does not speak as to the origin of life. That's a separate subject.

Do you believe life was created?

Notice the dodge maneuver – as I trust readers do.

Many Theists seem to have difficulty separating evolution (genetic change through generations) and abiogenesis (origin of life).

Those are separate topics.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

The argument against spontaneous generation only makes sense if one thinks that 'life' can only have one try, one flip of a coin or one roll of a dice.

And yet no one has ever been able to create life from non-life, have they?

No. Also no one can show that they KNOW how life originated. Citing ancient tales does not constitute verifiable evidence – only speculation and testimonials.

Notice that until October 4, 1957 no one could create a satellite orbiting a planet. Now it is commonplace.

Pahu. Say it after me. The theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Do not repeat the mistakes of so many others on this site and elsewhere, by conflating the two.

They why do evolutionists refer to that beginning?

Theists tend to confuse evolution (genetic change through generations) and abiogenesis (origin of life). Perhaps some actual study of biology and genetics (rather than, or in addition to theology) would enhance understanding.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 77 by Pahu]

Was not Darwin an evolutionist? Did he not suggest life started from a warm pond?

Darwin is credited with promoting the theory of evolution and no he did not suggest life started from a warm pond. Let me guess, you got that from your creationist websites? Then they are quite simply factually wrong, as factually wrong as if they said that 2 + 2 = 5.

Do you believe life was created?

No I do not. I lack a belief as to how exactly life started because at the moment, we simply do not know how. I do not know how it started, and neither do you. Do not pretend that you actually do know how.

And yet no one has ever been able to create life from non-life, have they?

So? What does that have to do with anything? No-one has been able to travel backwards through time, does that mean that stories featuring travel through time are to be considered true, because we haven't been able to do it yet? I'm straining to understand your logic with that question.

They why do evolutionists refer to that beginning?

What do you mean 'refer'? Explain yourself.

[Bust Nak]

Guys, he is referring to a letter by Darwin where he said, "it is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living being are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sort of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." That may or may not count as a "suggestion" but he definitely considered it.