Beginning

In The Begining...
« on: January 28, 2005, 01:43:34 PM »
IN THE BEGINNING
[/u]
Ok, so which is it, creation or evolution?
Did God create the heavens and the earth, and all life, as we know it today?
Or…did the all the galaxies including every known and undiscovered life form come into existence through a series of random, fluke accidents?
Perhaps the answer can be found somewhere in between. This is known as “creation evolution”
CREATION…
God created the heavens and the earth, including all life.
God created each species after it’s own kind, as fully formed species.
EVOLUTION…
The theory of evolution says that a hypothetical first living cell evolved, over billions of years, into a human
Living creatures can physically change to adapt to their environments this process is known as natural selection.
CREATION EVOLUTION…
God started life as simple single celled organisms, then went home and let evolution take over from there. That’s what many misguided Christians believe happened.
  Even though Bible-believing Christians obviously don’t ascribe to evolution, they do understand why non-believers do. Our liberal school systems have pounded evolution into our heads for many years. Hey, it must be credible because there are scores of scientific volumes, which clearly espouse it. They even depict the many stages of evolutionary changes. Haven’t you seen the detailed drawings, charts and models of half fish - half lizard? It doesn’t matter to the evolutionary scientists that these types of creatures have never been found in any fossil specimen, we know they existed because they don’t believe in God!
How about the evolution of humans?
Judging by these kind of detailed charts, you would have to assume the scientists have found many series of graduated transitional fossils which chart the evolutionary changes from monkeys to chimpanzees to apes to “cave men” and right up to modern man…right? WRONG! Well, if they haven’t found “many” G.T.F. then surely they have found a few…right? WRONG! OK, then they found one series, which connected the evolution of man from monkey, that’s obvious…right? NOPE! Then it’s obvious that they found some partial G.T.F…right? The fact of the matter is, that there is nowhere on this entire planet, even a single example of a G.T.F. to be found! Not one!
Evolutionists will tell you that there are G.T.F., however, when asked to point them out, they go into a coma, and usually stammer on about the “evidence” for evolution, such as the peppered moth and the wingless beetle (I’ll discuss these examples shortly), hoping you will forget that you asked for examples of G.T.F.
You would think that there would be millions of G.T.F. however, with all the assorted fossilized bones that are being studied and on display; none of them have any “transitional” friends. They are all “stand alone”
To Continue...
« Last Edit: February 01, 2005, 04:00:36 AM by Bronzesnake » Logged
Bronzesnake
Guest Re:In The Begining...
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2005, 01:48:37 PM »
PEPPERED MOTHS
Prior to the industrial revolution in England, the peppered moth population consisted predominantly of light-colored moths (containing speckled dots). A dark-colored form comprised only a small minority of the population. This was so because predators (birds) could more easily detect the dark-colored moths as they rested during the day on light-colored tree trunks. With the onset of the industrial revolution and resultant air pollution, the tree trunks and rocks became progressively darker. As a consequence, the dark-colored moths became increasingly difficult to detect, while the light-colored form ultimately became easy prey. Birds, therefore, began eating more light-colored than dark-colored moths, and today over 95 percent of the peppered moths in the industrial areas of England are of the darker-colored variety.
In this example, it is obvious that “natural selection” only changed the ratios of black and light (peppered) forms. Yet today many museums and educational institutes worldwide use this as one of the most striking examples of "evolution" ever witnessed by mankind.
WINGLESS BEETLES…
Today, there are a small handful of cases in which a genetic mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. These types of mutations are referred to as “beneficial mutations” But even these beneficial mutations do not improve the code in DNA: rather than adding any meaningful information, they destroy it.
For example, Darwin pointed to a case in which a genetic mutation caused flying beetles on a small desert island to lose their wings (the “wing making” information in the DNA was lost or scrambled in some way). However, due to this loss, the beetles had a better chance of survival because they were less likely to be blown into the sea. Thus, the mutation was “beneficial” to the beetle population because it helped them to survive better in their environment. This clearly shows how even a “beneficial” mutation can be damaging to the DNA code; in this case the mutation involved a loss of corruption of the information (or genes) for making wings.
Textbooks regularly use examples of beneficial mutations as evidence for evolution. But the problem with using beneficial mutations to support evolution is that they are exactly the opposite of what is required, that is, they involve a loss or corruption of existing information. For instance, losing the ability to fly has nothing to do with the origins of flight in the first place, which is what evolution is supposed to be about.
To produce a beetle from a simple cell, it is obvious that an increase of new genetic information is necessary to create the eyes, the wings, etc. Thus, to support evolution, the preceding beetle example would have to be reversed. The DNA code would have to be improved rather than damaged — new meaningful information (genes) would have to be produced. This means that a new physical feature would have to arise that was never before present — beetles normally born without wings would subsequently have to be born with them. But no such example exists.
Logged
Bronzesnake
Guest Re:In The Begining...
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2005, 03:18:36 AM »
WHAT GOD SAYS...
Read through the Genesis account, and I'll point out some interesting facts at the end.
 Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
 Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
 Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
 Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
 Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
 Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
 Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
 Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Logged
Bronzesnake
Guest Re:In The Begining...
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2005, 03:56:48 AM »
Consider the fact that Genesis was written down by Moses almost four thousand years ago. Remember, that was a very long time before science was even thought of, and yet, how amazing is it that even skeptical scientists have to concede that there is no scientific evidence in existence today to refute the Genesis account. Now that is either incredibly lucky, or the Bible is correct...We know the answer to that one don't we?
Here's another thing to consider. God says He created the sun, the moon and the stars on the fourth day, and yet God created plants and trees on the third day. How long do you think plant-life would have lasted if God hadn't created the sun very soon afterward? Kind of puts the kibosh on those who don't believe in a literal seven day creation doesn't it?
If creation took thousands or millions, even billions of years, how long would plants have lived without sunlight? Without plants nothing lives.
God says He created life in seven days, and He obviously meant it.
Here's something else to think about.
God is very specific about relating the fact that He created life after their own kind...
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind , and every winged fowl after his kind : and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind : and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Why would the Bible be so specific about this? Why would the fact that God created each species after their own kind even be relevant thousands of years before the theory of evolution was ever thought of? That information would have been totally useless to mankind for thousands of years...right up until the ninteenth centurey A.D.
God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously, and one of the miraculous things about His Word is that, it is, and was relevant throughout the ages.
On the next installment, I'll discuss mutations in a bit more detail
Logged
Bronzesnake
Guest Re:In The Begining...
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2005, 09:40:33 AM »
THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF MUTATIONS
[/u]
 Evolutionists science tells us that life spontaniously generated, and that the earliest "simple" single celled organisms slowly "evolved" through a process known as macro evolution - one species gradually becomes a totally different species. This quantum leap is thought to be brought on by varried enviornmental conditions and changes which force macroevolution through natural selection.
Macroevolution has never been observed, however, microevolution is seen to occur.
Educated Christians have no problem with microevolution.
Let's look at the difference between macro and micro evolution.
Microevolution - this is when organisms adapt to the changing conditions of the environment. It improves existing genes. It does not create new genes. An example that illustrates this is the classic peppered moth argument. I'll recap the Peppered Moth; Basically, when the trees are white, there are more white moths, conversely when the trees were turned black by pollution at the turn of the century, more black moths survived simply from being harder to see, not changing into a different moth. The moths are still moths, not a new creature. Another example of microevolution which is posted on this thread, is the wingless beetle.
Macroevolution-the changes within species that results in a new and separate species. An example of this would be a fish evolving into a bird. This has never been proven or observed in nature.
Evolutionists like to play the shell game in regard to such theoretical changes. They will display a fossilized fish, then they will locate a fossil of a lizard, and finally, they will proudly hold up the latest "feathered lizard" fossil and profess to the unsuspecting world that this is proof of evolution! Never mind the fact that there is absolutely zero linkage between any of these fossils, this is typical of evolutionary science! Oh ya, there's also the embarrassing fact that the so called "feathered lizard" was fake! I'll go into more detail about the "fakes" later on in the study.
This shell game is to some extent a successful tactic for the evolutionary science world. This is the type of proof they use to show that there actually are graduated transitional fossils!!
For the record, there are no actual graduated transitional fossils anywhere on this entire planet.
I'll give an analogy of the G.T.F. problem.
Imagine that there are ten photographs of ten different old men sitting on a table in front of you. Below those ten photos are ten other photos of ten different newborn children. You are asked to place the correct newborn photo with the matching old man photo. Pretty hard right?
Now add into this task the fact that the newborn photos may or may not even be related to the old men in the photos. However, you are still required to complete the task. How would you accomplish this?
You would have no other choice but to guess, using what you might perceive to be physical similarities. In the end, you would have no way of really knowing with any degree of certainty if you had found any real matches.
Would you gamble your life that the matches were correct?...probably not, however, that is exactly what we do when we chose to believe in the theory of evolution over creation.
If you given a full series of yearly photos from newborn to old age, you could with almost 100% certainty, make a determination of whether or not the newborn photos matched up with any of the old men in the photos or not.
In the world of evolution, scientists insinuate, and some even outright lie, and tell us that there are fossils which at the farthest distant point of life, begin as one species, and through a graduated transitional series of fossilized "photos" one can with great certainty establish a pattern of evolution...this simply is not true. As a matter of fact, there is not, on the surface of this entire planet, so much as a single series of graduated transitional fossils, which show one species slowly or otherwise, change into another species.
What we do find in the fossil record is fully formed specific species. There are no "half way" fossils...none! - zero! This fact is annoying evolutionary scientists to no end. As a mater of fact, the evolutionists scientists have had to revamp Darwinian evolution which says that species slowly mutate from one species into another, and the latest "theory" says the "change" happens so quick that there are no G.T.F.'s!! This is not science my friends, it's admission that evolution is a fraud!
What scientist have done in essence, is to study baby photos and link them up to old men without any intermediary photos at all...a monkey has some physical similarities to humans, therefore we share a common ancestor - which, by the way, has never been found - but "it exists" if only in their minds.
to continue...
Logged
Bronzesnake
Guest Re:In The Begining...
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2005, 09:47:23 AM »
Before I get into DNA mutations, I think it's important to discuss biogenesis.
The basis for evolution led to a revival of the spontaneous biogenesis theory, also known as chemical evolution, or spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter. However, this concept was disproved by Louis Pasteur, whose contributions were among the most valuable in the history of science. Pasteur proved through famous experiments that all life comes from life, never from non-life.
There has never been a scientific experiment that has produced pure samples of the correct type of proteins or nucleotides necessary for the production of life. However, in 1953 the famous Miller/Urey experiment proved that in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane, and energy can combine to form some amino acids which are required for life. Yet the highly praised Miller/ Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced 85 percent tar, 13 percent carbolic acid, 1.05 percent glycine, 0.85 percent alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals. Although the amino acids glycine and alanine are required for life, the tar and carbolic acids would be toxic to any proteins if they ever formed. Every subsequent experiment of this kind has produced similar results. Some experiments have produced slightly higher percentages of the usable product, but the majority of the material that is produced by these experiments is toxic to life.
In fact, the Encyclopedia Britannica has affirmed in one article that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation theories supported by the famous Miller/ Urey experiment. Moreover, many scientists now believe that the earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible in the Miller/Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” has never existed, although the experiment assumes one. It is also now realized that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. And there are many other specific criticisms of the Miller/Urey experiment as well that show its fundamental assumptions about the primordial atmosphere to be false.
Despite the accumulating evidence that stacks up against the Miller/Urey experiment, it is nonetheless still used in educational institutes worldwide to support the idea that life was spontaneously produced from non-life.
The evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald demonstrates this inconsistency very clearly: “Spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we [human beings] are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”
to continue...
Logged
Bronzesnake
Guest Re:In The Begining...
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2005, 10:49:23 AM »
MUTATIONS continued
OK, let's talk DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid)
 The theory of evolution says that a hypothetical first living cell evolved, over billions of years, into a human being. However, such a process meant finding a way to generate enormous amounts of genetic information (DNA), including the instructions for making eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscle, blood, etc. If the theory of evolution were true then, the total information content of the genetic code (DNA) must have continually increased with the emergence of new genes (or instructions).
There had to be some kind of mechanism to have added all the extra genetic instructions required to progressively transform a one-celled creature into a human being. Evolutionists believe it was something called genetic mutations.
The English language can be used as an analogy to illustrate what a genetic mutation is: The message “The enemy is now attacking” could mistakenly be copied as “The enemy is not attacking.” Naturally, this mistake would probably result in harmful consequences. Indeed, it is unlikely that a random mistake might actually improve the meaning of the message; very likely the meaning would be damaged.
In the same way, mutations are generally random copying mistakes in the reproduction of the genetic code (DNA), and tend to be harmful. The code in DNA is simply a complex set of instructions that tells a creature’s body how to reproduce itself (much the same as a set of instructions that tells a person how to reproduce a car or spaceship). Random copying mistakes (mutations), then, are obviously unlikely to improve these instructions;in fact, they are much more likely to damage or destroy them, as the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges.
That is why many mutations cause disease and death. In fact, according to one university biology textbook, the odds that a mutation (random copying mistake) might actually improve the instructions contained in the genetic code are so low that “a random change is not likely to improve the genome (genetic code) any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.” But this isn’t surprising, since mutations are random mistakes.
However, evolutionists generally believe that occasionally a “good” mutation will occur, one which will improve the genetic code, despite the overwhelming odds as described above. It is thought that such “good” copying mistakes would scramble the instructions in the code in such a way as to improve it, thus generating the new information required to tell the body how to build a new physical feature. Such “good” mutations, the Encyclopedia Britannica says, would “serve as the raw material of evolution.”
Evolutionists believe that over the last 4.5 billion years, an accumulation of trillions of these hypothetical “good” copying mistakes have continuously improved the genetic code, adding enough new information to transform a "simple" single celled organism into a human being.
This is the equivalent of saying that random copying mistakes when re-typing the instructions to produce an automobile could eventually result in such an improved set of instructions, that instead of producing an automobile, the new and improved instructions would produce a working spaceship!
OK, let's sumarize what the evolutionists generally believe...
Evolutionists believe that new DNA information (genes) comes from “good” accidental copying mistakes, and these mistakes are what have generated the encyclopedic amounts of information necessary to transform the first self-reproducing organism billions of years ago into every living thing in the world today. Put those "happy mistakes" together with a process called “natural selection,” and you get your “neo-Darwinian theory of evolution,” today the most widely believed explanation among evolutionists for life’s origins.
Has a "good" mutation ever really been observed?
 has a mutation been observed which has been seen to improve the genetic code by adding meaningful information (new genes, or “instructions”) to build (at least part of ) a new physical feature? No! But that doesn't seem to bother the evolutionists.
to continue...
Logged
Bronzesnake
Guest Re:In The Begining...
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2005, 10:51:47 AM »
Let me briefly define what is meant by the term “information” in this context. The DNA code has already been defined as a set of instructions, analogous to an English message. The sequence of “letters” (or bases) in the code is not random or repetitive, but instead, like the letters in a written message. In other words, the code has meaning. For instance, a random sequence of English letters such as “nkntweioeimytnhatcesga” means nothing, but when the same letters are arranged “the enemy is now attacking,” it becomes a meaningful message, containing meaningful information. It is the specific arrangement of letters that makes the message meaningful to someone who understands the language, and this meaningful arrangement is, in itself, “information.” In the same way, it is the specific arrangement of “letters” (or bases) in the DNA code that makes the code meaningful to the body, which understands the DNA (genetic) language. This meaningful arrangement of “letters” in the DNA code is what makes up the information that tells the body how to produce a particular physical feature or characteristic, such as an eyeball or hair color.
Today, there is a small handful of cases in which a genetic mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. These types of mutations are referred to as “beneficial mutations.” But even these beneficial mutations do not improve the code in DNA: rather than adding any meaningful information, they destroy it. The examples I gave of the Peppered Moths and the Wingless Beetle are classic examples of these “beneficial mutations.” but let's be clear about this - these examples do not promote evolution - macro evolution requires new DNA information in order to grow hair, or limbs, or eyes ect. These examples are a direct result of a "loss" or "corruption" of existing DNA information.
Textbooks regularly use examples of beneficial mutations as evidence for evolution. But again - the problem with using beneficial mutations to support evolution is that they are exactly the opposite of what is required, that is, they involve a loss or corruption of existing information. For instance, losing the ability to fly has nothing to do with the origins of flight in the first place, which is what evolution is supposed to be about.
To produce a beetle from a simple cell, it is obvious that an increase of new genetic information is necessary to create the eyes, the wings, etc. Thus, to support evolution, the preceding beetle example would have to be reversed. The DNA code would have to be improved rather than damaged — new meaningful information (genes) would have to be produced. This means that a new physical feature would have to arise that was never before present — beetles normally born without wings would subsequently have to be born with them. But no such example exists.
Is there ever an addition of new information?
Well, if you look at textbook examples of evolution, there are none that cause an addition of new genetic (DNA) information. All appear to be downhill (information- losing) processes, the exact opposite of what evolution requires.
Look at this illustration by creationist scientists of how genetic information is lost, rather than gained, as creatures adapt to their environment.
While natural selection and beneficial mutations “may increase an organism’s adaptation,” no one has ever been able to point to a mutation that has actually improved the genetic code by adding new meaningful information (new genes or “instructions” for building a new physical trait). All mutations appear to scramble the already-existing information (instructions), either by the reshuffling or duplication of existing genes, or simply by damaging the genes altogether.
Oxford professor Richard Dawkins is generally regarded as one of the most influential neo-Darwinists in the world. During an interview, he was asked a crucial question: Could he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added new genetic information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neo- Darwinism around the world, would know of it.) Dawkins appeared so perplexed by this question that the creation organization who produced the video says that “Dawkins’ response on screen makes a more powerful point against evolution than volumes written by creationists.”
Another scientist, Dr. Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.”
But because examples such as the wingless beetles and the peppered moths show physical changes in living creatures, they are still repeatedly used by evolutionists to promote the idea that primitive bacteria have changed so much in the distant past that today they have become people. Yet such examples simply do not support evolution — all observed examples of change are either genetically neutral or genetically downhill, being losses of information instead of the required gains. Losing bits of genetic information a little at a time surely does not help explain how the genetic code was built in the first place; one can’t build a business by losing a little bit of money at a time.
It’s not surprising that one of the most well-known evolutionists openly criticized the traditional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. On the faculties of Harvard and New York University, the late Stephen Jay Gould was the author of over 15 books on scientific topics and contributed monthly essays to the periodical Natural History since January 1974. His essays have also appeared in other scientific periodicals and his work can be found quoted in educational textbooks at all levels. He wrote that although he had been “beguiled” by the unifying power of neo-Darwinism when he studied it as a graduate student in the 1960s, the weight of the evidence pushed him to the reluctant conclusion that neo-Darwinism “as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”
Today, there is a growing realization that the presently accepted concept of natural selection and mutations really explains nothing of evolutionary significance. One leading creationist summarized the situation well: “All of our realworld experience, especially in today’s ‘information age,’ would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking, not science.” In everyday experience, information never arises without an intelligent source.
on the next installment I'll discuss fossils..
Logged
Bronzesnake
Guest Re:In The Begining...
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2005, 05:52:40 PM »
FOSSILS
[/b][/u]
A fossil is an imprint, or impression of an animal or a plant that has been preserved in the earth. Usually a fossil is either the skeleton of the impression a skeleton of a dead animal preserved or molded into hard rock.
Did you ever play with clay or play-dough when you were a child? I did. I remember I used to press objects into the play-dough and make an impression of it. This is possible because the clay is moist and pliable. That’s somewhat the same way fossils form.
It is generally agreed that fossils form when the animal is suddenly buried in sediments or soil at or soon after death. Animals which died on the ground or surface water would quickly become a menu item and would be greedily eaten up… no animal, no fossil.
Recently, I watched a program about Mount Vesuvious.. On the morning of the 24 of August 72 AD Pressure finally blew out the plug. Two thousand people died within the town of Pompeii, many more scattered on the countrysides trying to flee. Pompeii was buried under 3 to 5 meters of pumice and ash. Herculaneum had it worse; being buried under thirteen meters of boiling mud that came pouring down the mountain in waves.
Archaeologists discovered that many people were actually fossilized by the hot ash, and today, there are dozens of human fossils at the site.
Excavators found that much of what Pompeii looked like in 79 A.D. had been preserved by the ash that had fallen. A bakery oven contained loaves of bread nearly 2000 years old! Victims of Vesuvius were immortalized when their decomposed bodies left cavities in the hardened ash. The cavities were filled with plaster to recreate victims much as they looked at the time of their death.
A common form of fossilization is permineralization.
This occurs when ground minerals, from earth, lakes, or oceans, impregnate the pours of the animal or plant. The fossil takes the original shape of the tissue or organism as the pours are filled with minerals, or even entirely replaced by minerals. Such as this Trilobite
Petrification occurs when the organic matter is completely replaced by minerals and the fossil is turned to stone. This generally occurs by filling the pores of the tissue, and inter and intra cellular spaces with minerals, then dissolving the organic matter and replacing it with minerals. This method reproduces the original tissue in every detail. This kind of fossilization occurs in both hard and soft tissues. An example of this kind of fossilization is petrified wood.
Some 3 million years ago, a volcanic eruption near the northern Napa Valley sent a thick cloud of hot ash and gas over the surrounding redwood forest. The buried wood was carefully and completely replaced by silica minerals leached from the rhyolitic lava. As the land changed and streams eroded into the ash beds, the petrified trunks and fossil wood fragments emerged, and the early settlers turned the site into a roadside attraction called the Sonoma Petrified Forest. Robert Louis Stevenson wrote about it in 1880, and it's still a low-key, woodsy place full of 19th-century charm.
Unaltered preservation like insects or plant parts trapped in amber, a hardened form of tree sap.
Some fossils such as these shark teeth have remained as they were when they were lost. An object doesn’t have to be petrified to be considered a fossil, merely preserved.
The teeth on the left are modern, the teeth on the right are fossils.
OK, I think that’s a fair description of fossils and how they are formed. Next, I’ll go into the fossil record. The fakes, the dishonesty, the assumptions, and finally the truth.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2005, 05:55:05 PM by Bronzesnake » Logged
Bronzesnake
Guest Re:In The Begining...
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2005, 05:14:35 PM »
Before I get into the fossil frauds and facts, I'd like to make the point that many Bible believing Christians already know.
We believe that God caused a world wide flood in order to wipe out the corruption that had taken hold on the earth. I won't go into details about the corruption, as that would be another Bible study. I will focus on the facts surrounding the flood, and show that the fossils which we see in our museums and magazines were created by God's flood.
I have given a somewhat boring description of how fossils are formed in order to show how well it fits in with the Bible account of a global flood.
Here's what God says happened...
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.
Gen 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
Gen 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
Gen 6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it.
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.
Gen 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather [it] to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
Gen 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Gen 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Gen 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.