Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions
Home Register FAQ
Go Back   Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions > Discussions > Topic Discussions
Reload this Page Science Disproves Evolution
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-16   #1701
neonwraith
Voice of Unerring Reason
 
neonwraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the Cold Harsh North
Posts: 3,408
neonwraith
Credits: 108,935
Seriously dude.... What the hell.....you're the only one left here.....we've left you're like the last automated radio station pumping out jazz to a long dead population

N
__________________
"I've oft been told by learned friars
That wishing and the crime were one
And heaven punishes desires
As much as if the deed were done.

If wishing damns us, you and I
Are damned to all our hearts content.
Come then we may at least enjoy
Some pleasure for our punishment..."

Sir Thomas More
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-16   #1702
Sic Simon
Permanently Banned
 
Sic Simon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I am the wind.
Posts: 11,192
Sic Simon is on a distinguished road
Credits: 309,121
Nicely put. I imagined a transistor radio sticking halfway out of sand in a fallout wasteland pumping out some funktastic jazz music like with a radioactive spider on it eating a holographic technobunny. I imagined more but it got quite obscure and pornographic from that point on.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-16   #1703
neonwraith
Voice of Unerring Reason
 
neonwraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the Cold Harsh North
Posts: 3,408
neonwraith
Credits: 108,935
That fact it became pornographic is a dead world is quite an achievement

N
__________________
"I've oft been told by learned friars
That wishing and the crime were one
And heaven punishes desires
As much as if the deed were done.

If wishing damns us, you and I
Are damned to all our hearts content.
Come then we may at least enjoy
Some pleasure for our punishment..."

Sir Thomas More
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-16   #1704
Sic Simon
Permanently Banned
 
Sic Simon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I am the wind.
Posts: 11,192
Sic Simon is on a distinguished road
Credits: 309,121
Nothing can quell my hyper horniness
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-16   #1705
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402
Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

Atheists and evolutionist have no evidence to support their position and instead of looking for rational answers they spend their time*ridiculing creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while they agree with evolutionists who maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything.*Isn’t that absurd and pathetic? And they continue to deny the evidence for God's existence.

Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, doesn’t observation and experiment become the final arbitrator of truth? The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the hypothesis of evolution? We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory. So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same boat: no absolute way to objectively test their assertions. There are no human eyewitnesses. Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with the facts of science for consistency. Notice too, that good hypotheses are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution; how can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!" Is this science or something else?
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-16   #1706
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

The Law of Biogenesis

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]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-16   #1707
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Acquired Characteristics

Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Last edited by Pahu; 08-17-16 at 07:33.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-16   #1708
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Mendel’s Laws

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family.


Figure*3: Dog Variability.* When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations.* It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man.* Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) also confirm these boundaries.

a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:

“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

b. “Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.

c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-16   #1709
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Billions of People in Thousands of Years?



Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

SIMPLE, CONSERVATIVE ARITHMETIC REVEALS CLEAR MATHEMATICAL LOGIC FOR A YOUNG AGE OF THE EARTH.

One Plus One Equals Billions

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006. This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

Impact of the Flood

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

FROM TWO PEOPLE, CREATED ABOUT 6,000 YEARS AGO, AND THEN THE EIGHT PEOPLE, PRESERVED ON THE ARK ABOUT 4,500 YEARS AGO, THE WORLD’S POPULATION COULD EASILY HAVE GROWN TO THE EXTENT WE NOW SEE IT—OVER 6.5 BILLION.

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.

This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion.

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?” This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.

https://answersingenesis.org/evidenc...ands-of-years/
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-16   #1710
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Much Evidence Supports Earth as the Origin of Meteorites

• Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.

• Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,73 and possible cellulose.

• Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water.

• Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids—a sign of once-living matter.

• NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.

• A few meteorites show that “salt-rich fluids analogous to terrestrial brines” flowed through their veins.

• Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth’s water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 88 on page 379, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory.

• Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.

Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?

Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp6476653
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Last edited by Pahu; 09-03-16 at 08:20.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-16   #1711
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Bounded Variations

Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few (c). New features apparently don’t evolve.

a. “...the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b. “The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c. Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-16   #1712
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

A Moment For Truth

Dave Hunt

America awakened September 11 [2001] to appalling scenes on TV of passenger planes deliberately crashing into the towers of the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon. Stunned disbelief gave way to the question, who could so carefully plan and efficiently execute such incredibly inhumane destruction and slaughter?

What cause could so powerfully motivate educated
and trained individuals to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of so many total strangers in this manner? In the minds of civilized people these men were unbelievable fanatics. But were they? Could one call the spiritual leader of an entire major country a "fanatic," a man universally recognized as properly representing his religion? Who would know his religion better than the spiritual leader himself? Such was Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini when he declared, "The purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed for Allah."


Is that fanaticism? And could you call the founder of a major world religion a fanatic? Muhammad, who with his followers slaughtered thousands in establishing and spreading Islam, said of Muslims, "Who relinquishes his faith, kill him...I have been ordered by Allah to fight with people till they testify there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger."

Was Muhammad a fanatic? Are they fanatics who obey him today in exacting the death penalty upon Muslims (as in Afghanistan, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan) who for the sake of conscience convert to another religion? Do we need a new definition of "fanatic"?

There is a certain hypocrisy in the new outrage with which America and the world now view terrorism. History's bloodiest, most vicious and successful terrorist, Yasser Arafat, has been given the Nobel Peace Prize and embraced as a world statesman. He is proof to would-be imitators that terrorism pays big. The United Nations, European Union, and countless world political and religious leaders have sided with him in his terrorism against Israel.

Arafat and his PLO held the record for the largest hijacking (four aircraft in a single operation)—which has just been equaled, the greatest number of hostages held at one time (300), the greatest number of people shot at an airport, the largest ransom collected ($5 million paid by Lufthansa), the greatest variety of targets (40 civilian passenger aircraft, five passenger ships, 30 embassies or diplomatic ministries plus innumerable fuel depots and factories), etc.

Instead of being tried by an international tribunal as were the Nazi and Serbian leadership, Arafat's bloody exploits gained for him acceptance as a leader for peace!

In his brief speech to the nation the morning of the 12th, President Bush declared that the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. were "acts of war." Indeed, they were—jihad ("holy war"). He said that "freedom and democracy are under attack [but] we will not allow this enemy to win the war by...restricting our freedoms." Is it a mere coincidence that the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and of vote and conscience which we hold so dear in America are suppressed in every Muslim country? Who dares to make the obvious connection between this declaration of war against America, and the declaration of war against the entire world by Muhammad in the seventh century; a part of Islam ever since? Since its inception, jihad has been waged by Islamic warriors to spread that religion of violence and hatred. Islam does not change. Rioting Muslim mobs invariably chant in their "fanaticism," "Allah is great! Allah is great!"

In the wake of this terrible act of "holy war," our President and Congressional leaders referred to God numerous times and invoked His blessing in tracking down the perpetrators of this infamous deed. The God of the Bible to whom they referred is not Allah, the god of Islam, whom the attacking terrorists served so faithfully!

We may be certain that the hijackers were not Israelis or evangelical Christians. Never! The simple but horrible fact is that only the religion of Islam could supply the motivation for what they did. Why are Muslims responsible for most terrorism in the world today? There is a definitive and foundational reason.

It would be extremely naive to imagine that terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up in Israel or to crash a plane at the loss of their own and many other lives do so for some commendable humanitarian cause. The courage comes solely from a unique doctrine of Islam.

Abu-Bakr, the first Caliph to succeed Muhammad (and one of the few to whom Muhammad promised Paradise without martyrdom), declared that even if he had one foot in Paradise he could not trust Allah to let him in. The only sure way in Islam of achieving Paradise is to sacrifice one's life in jihad. Yes, suicide is forbidden as self-murder. But to sacrifice one's life in killing infidels carries the highest reward.

And what reward does Paradise bring to the jihad martyr? He is promised a palace of pearls in which are 70 mansions; inside each mansion are 70 houses and in each house a bed on which are 70 sheets and on each sheet a beautiful virgin. He is assured that he will have the appetite and strength of 100 men for food and sex. This is the fantastic dream that is fed to Muslim boys from earliest childhood. This motivation alone gives the reckless courage and determination to train and execute terrorist deeds in which they sacrifice their lives in bringing death and destruction to "the enemies of Allah."

America has been called "the Great Satan" by Muslim leaders around the world. Thus the strike at America was a strike for Allah against his chief enemy. Palestinians danced in the streets to celebrate the destruction in America, shouting victory to Allah. The day before the attack CNN showed routine footage of third grade children in a West Bank school chanting death to Israel. Only indoctrination into Islam makes possible such incredible scenes and the terrorism they celebrate.

Though people of good will naturally recoil from attaching blame to a major world religion itself, we can no longer afford such sentimentality. No longer dare we allow Islam to escape its undeniable responsibility. Yet former President Bush called Islam a peace-loving religion. The devastating acts of war by Islamic terrorists against the United States were greeted by naive statements from well-intentioned government leaders to the effect that we must distinguish between terrorism perpetrated by extremist groups and Islam itself which is peaceful. Yet there are more than 100 verses in the Qur'an advocating the use of violence to spread Islam.

In the Qur'an, Allah commands Muslims, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends...Slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them....Fight against such...as believe not in Allah..." (Surah 5:51; 9:5,29,41, etc..). Though most Muslims would shrink from obeying such commands, this is official Islam and it cannot change without admitting that Muhammad was a false prophet and murderer.

Several years ago Steven Emerson produced for PBS an excellent video titled Jihad In America. Its cameras went directly inside cell groups associated with mosques here in America where eager young Muslims were being recruited for jihad against the United States. Muslim leaders are shown giving speeches about bringing America to its knees through terrorism and making cold-blooded statements such as the following from Fayiz Azzam in Brooklyn in1989: "Blood must flow, there must be widows, orphans. Hands and limbs must be severed and limbs and blood must be spread everywhere in order that Allah's religion stand on its feet!" Yes, Allah's religion is the motivation!

In Kansas, in 1988, another leader recruiting Islamic holy warriors against the United States exults, "O, brothers! After Afghanistan [where Muslim "freedom fighters," aided by the CIA, drove out the Soviets and installed the brutal Taliban regime] nothing in the world is impossible for us any more! There are no superpowers or minipowers. What matters is will power that springs from our religious belief!" Yes, religious belief, the particular belief of Islam, is the only motivation capable of inspiring such "fanaticism."

At the beginning of the video, Emerson, who had tracked international terrorism for the prior ten years, reported on what he called "networks of Islamic extremists" inside the US. He accurately warned that "for these militants jihad is a holy war, an armed struggle to defeat nonbelievers, or infidels, and their ultimate goal is to establish an Islamic [worldwide] empire." Yet he later backpedaled into the incredible statement that "Islam as a religion does not condone violence; the radicals represent only themselves—an extremist and violent fringe..." That is simply not true. It is not because men are Arabs or extremists that they turn to terrorism, but because they are devout Muslims. Yet who will face this obvious fact?

Hatred of Israel and the call to destroy America for supporting her are also underlying themes of the terrorists seen in the documentary. Another Muslim leader in the US declares that Washington's Capitol Hill is "Zionist-occupied territory," that the Jews control Congress, and that the United States deserves what it gets so long as it continues to support Israel.

Referring repeatedly to "Islamic holy warriors," the video documented as clearly as could be done that Islam is the driving force behind terrorism. Astonishingly, however, the narrator and counter-terrorism experts being interviewed repeatedly declared that Islam was not to be blamed but only the "fanaticism" of certain individuals. For example, Paul Bremer, former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism for the State Department, said it is "important to make a distinction...the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs are peace loving." It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and would protest that they support terrorism. Our sympathy is with them. However, should they not ask themselves why they follow a religion founded upon violence, which from its very inception has been spread with the sword?

Under Muhammad's leadership in the seventh century, thousands of Arabs (and many Jews and Christians) in the Arabian Peninsula were killed by Islam's fierce "holy warriors" to force that religion upon the Arab world. Upon Muhammad's death, most Arabians abandoned Islam, imagining that they were free at last. Swiftly, tens of thousands of Arabs were slaughtered in the Wars of Apostasy, which forced Arabia back under Allah. From that base Islam was spread everywhere with the sword.

On radio and TV, during that black Tuesday in September, which we can never forget, we were repeatedly told by well-intentioned government officials that we must be careful not to blame Islam for what a few fanatics had done. In fact, terrorists act in direct obedience to Muhammad, the Qur'an, Allah and Islam. While nominal Muslims reject the idea, all Islamic scholars agree that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to use violence whenever possible to spread Islam until it has taken over the world.

We need to face some simple questions: Is not the attempt to force them into Islam the cause of the cruel enslavement, torture and slaughter of millions in southern Sudan? Is not Islam the driving force behind the murderous and destructive riots against Christians in Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and elsewhere? Is it not the enforcement of Islamic law that makes the Taliban deny all civil rights to those under its control in Afghanistan? And what is it but Islam that unites the otherwise divided Arab world in an implacable and unreasoning hatred against Israel?

No Arab map in the world admits Israel's existence. It is only Islam's claim that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son of promise and that the Holy Land belongs to them, which unites Arabs in the "fanatical" determination to destroy the Jews.

There is a natural reluctance to accept any statement which seems to be a prejudiced attack upon a world religion. It is the fear of such prejudice which prevents the world from facing the truth. But is it prejudice to state the plain facts? No, it is not—but it is difficult to face the truth that Islam itself is a religion of violence and that those who practice it are not extremists and fanatics in the ordinary sense of those words, but sincere followers of Muhammad.

The world has sided with Islam in its false claim to the land of Israel, which is now inaccurately called Palestine. This promised land, given to Israel by the God of the Bible, has been occupied by Jews continuously for the last 3,000 years, and they are the only people to have done so. In recognition of that undeniable historic fact, all of "Palestine" was to be given to the Jews for a national homeland by a 1917 ruling of the League of Nations. But steadily the Jews were betrayed by Britain's administration of this mandate (and the demise of the British Empire can be dated from that betrayal); the land was parceled out to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Israel is now accused of "occupying" land, which actually has been theirs for 3,000 years. The come-lately "Palestinians" are sustained by the world in the lie that they are the original owners of this land. As a result, terrorism is perpetrated not only against Israel but now in this latest act against the United States to apply pressure to force Israel out of its rightful land and to spread Islam around the world.

We have arrived at a defining moment when truth could triumph if the world would recognize that terrorists are not "fanatics" but devout fundamentalist Muslims who are earnestly following their religion. This recognition could bring fresh sympathy for Muslims of all nationalities who are tragically trapped in that system.

The expose of the truth could embarrass Muslim nations into opening the Islamic Curtain and allowing freedom to enter their borders. It could be a new day of open evangelism for the world where not force but love and reason permit each person to determine the faith he would embrace from his heart.

Let us pray to that end.
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-16   #1713
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Natural Selection 1

Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection” differs from what the words actually mean. “Selecting” implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allows variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection” will be used.

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” Only in this sense, does nature “select” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. (a).

a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.

Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).

Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See pages 108-339]

“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.

Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-16   #1714
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Natural Selection 2

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased (b).

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved (c), or

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more (d), or

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).

b. “[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977, p. 28.

c. G. Z. Opadia-Kadima, “How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127–135.

d. Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case of Un-Natural Selection,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, September 1998, pp. 76–83.

e. Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility. [See Rick McGuire, “Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria,” Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]

“The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-16   #1715
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402
'ANGEL' IN BEAMS OF LIGHT AT WORLD TRADE CENTER 9/11 MEMORIAL

Photographer: 'Almost looked like a vision of the Lord'




Image being called the Angel of the World Trade Center. This image was captured by Richard McCormack. He is a photographer at the New Jersey Journal.
Copyright: Richard McCormack

A startling image has emerged from the recent memorial light display in New York City commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attack on America by Islamic terrorists: an image that is being described as an angel.
“I did a double-take not knowing really what it was, but as I zoomed in it almost looked like a vision of the Lord with his arms crossed,” photographer Rich McCormack told a New Jersey station. “I got very emotional, and I got tears in my eyes.”
He’s posted his images on social media.
Yvette Cid, who lost two sons in the 9/11 terror attacks, told him, “Rich I know you don’t photo shop that’s an awesome pic wow I lost my two boys and I believe this is a sign to all that have lost a loved one.”
Here’s a zoomed-in view:




Copyright: Rich McCormack

And another even closer:




Copyright: Rich McCormack

THelena Padget added, “The Lord is with us and this is just another reminder. It’s beautiful.”
McCormack, of Jersey City, reported he’d taken multiple images of the light, but the figure appeared only in one.
What do we know about heaven? See the resources available at the WND Superstore, including “Heaven Vision: Glimpses Into Glory,” “Heaven Is Beyond Your Wildest Expectations: Ten Ture Stories of Experiencing Heaven,” and “Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey Into The Afterlife.”


http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/angel-in-...nter-memorial/
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-16   #1716
Evil Fred III
Lurks in the Shadows
 
Evil Fred III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 177
Evil Fred III is on a distinguished road
Credits: 4,592
It is quite beautiful
__________________
"I geuss ill keep on rambling."
-The Rolling Stones
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-16   #1717
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Fred III View Post
It is quite beautiful
We agree.
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-16   #1718
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Natural Selection 3

While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved; in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands are another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest (f). Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes (g). It deletes information; it cannot create information.

f. “Darwin complained his critics did not understand him, but he did not seem to realize that almost everybody, friends, supporters and critics, agreed on one point, his natural selection cannot account for the origin of the variations, only for their possible survival. And the reasons for rejecting Darwin’s proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), pp. 274–275.

“It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.” Michael J. Behe, “Molecular Machines,” Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

g. In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” Summarizing a range of opinions, he said:


“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under

Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’ ” Ibid., p. 884.

“But the crucial issue is that, for the most part, the fossils do not document a smooth transition from old morphologies to new ones.” Ibid., p. 883.

Since the fossil record does not show small, continual changes that build up over time to produce macroevolution (as has been taught for over a century), the conclusion was that macroevolutionary jumps must be relatively sudden. If so, how could those major jumps produce an organism with a new vital organ? Without that vital organ, the creature is, by definition, dead.

As stated earlier, micro + time ≠ macro.

“One could argue at this point that such ‘minor’ changes [microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not support this argument... [examples given] Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation....For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.” Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered,” Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-16   #1719
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Mutations 1

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution (a).

Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

a. “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation.” Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event,...” Ayala, p. 63.

b. “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution....the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29.)

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.” C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.” Ibid. p. 103.

“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment.” Ibid. p. 100.

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.” W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species,” Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-16   #1720
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 723
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,402

Mutations 2

Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.

“Lethal mutations outnumber viables by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.” Winchester, p. 356.

John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262–265.

“...I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance.” George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.

However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!

“Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.” James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.

“The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration...” [emphasis in original] Sewall Wright, “The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation,” The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.

In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:

“Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.” Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The last person to post on this thread is the WINNER!!! pt2 gArGOyLe^^ Topic Discussions 4130 07-22-17 12:06
Interesting Science News articles. Panthera66 Topic Discussions 3 05-28-10 08:10
the evolution debate ShotDownStar Topic Discussions 66 12-08-06 20:14
The warped minds of the wholesome christians. Lenina Topic Discussions 122 09-21-05 02:18
Science 101! Dyshade Topic Discussions 39 07-07-04 21:37

Recent Threads
Obama sends a letter.
4 Weeks Ago 22:42
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Hour Ago 14:09
Hey fr0g
4 Weeks Ago 02:49
Last post by thefr0g
17 Hours Ago 21:40
Put your liter of cola...
08-06-17 20:53
Last post by Dark Messiah
2 Days Ago 23:09
What Are you Listening...
03-21-05 07:40
By Cucking Funt
Last post by Sic Simon
5 Days Ago 22:56
My doctor
1 Week Ago 00:29
Last post by Sic Simon
5 Days Ago 21:27
How Do I Access the...
03-17-07 22:48
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 01:55
vote or die
10-07-17 02:56
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 00:06
Science Disproves...
11-01-10 15:38
by Pahu
Last post by Pahu
1 Week Ago 10:45
long Sunday
09-24-17 19:00
by DaxterK
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 21:20
Ask me a question game
12-13-02 18:13
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 21:14
Online Users: 70
0 members and 70 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 1928, 06-09-15 at 19:20.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 Dark Forum | About Dark Forum | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community