The Evolution Myth

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Judy,

Yes, there's really no reason to doubt the fossil record is truly a global record and that it and its fossil contents (known as the 'Geological Column') were laid down in sequence and at extremely rapid speed. After all, the fact that these fossils exist is clear testimony to them being embedded extremely fast. That is, the strata known as Cambrian to Cretaceous inclusive were laid down during a truly global flood and its abatement. And the strata from the end of the Cretaceous onwards were laid down even more recently. In fact, the last global episode of mountain formation (during which time great mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, the Alps, the Rockie Mountains etc. were formed at very rapid speed) occurred at a time when the temperature of many areas of the world had plunged due to there being no forests in those early post-diluvian times. The result was what is today called the 'Ice Age'. There is simply no doubt the glaciation of the so-called 'Ice Age' happened during the span of human recorded history. That modern sea/ocean levels arrived at their modern depths only in the last centuries of pre-Christian times. Not in '10,000 BC' as we are often told. Lots of evidence indicates the biblical record is historically very reliable and that the first civilizations really do come from the late 3rd millenium BC.

[Manuel]

ROFL.........

[Robert Newman]

Manuel,

Thanks for your long reply !

You agree of course there are fossil formations globally ? Don't you ? Can you name a continent or large landmass where there are no fossil formations ?

1. You may even agree fossils from sedimentary layers of the so-called 'Geological Column' (specifically all those from Cambrian strata to Cretaceous inclusive) were formed on all continents of the world even before the organic parts of these animals and fish had naturally decomposed ? That is, these particular fossils were formed globally and were indisputably formed at extremely rapid speed. Yes ? (Cenozoic formations are of course more recent - these were formed after the abatement of that global flood and are explained quite separately).

2. Can you, Manuel, provide one reason why these specific geological/fossil formations (i.e. from Cambrian to Cretaceous inclusive - i.e. from so-called Palaeozoic to Mesozoic inclusive) were NOT formed during a truly global flood and its abatement ? Just give us a single scientific or logical reason ? We don't need dozens of reasons. Just one. The hard evidence from the sciences of palaeontology and geology which we see obviously required the causes of global fossilisation to have been global themselves. Right ? Er, how about a global flood ? Any other suggestion ?

Looking forward to your more expansive and intelligent reply.

Thanks

ROFL !!!

[sunwaiter]

hi Robert!

i've read the posts on this thread and i do believe you are a serious and involved person when it comes to the subject of evolution/ creation or creation/evolution. but i can't help being amazed at how you seem to be sure of what you're saying. to be honest i always had problems with certainty. since you're into science, i'm sure you know it. in many domains it's called the principle of precaution (at least that's how we call it in french). what i mean is that since there is still room for speculation in both sides on this topic, how would we be sure if fish was created as such, or if my super-grandfather was an ape? those who say they behold the truth terrify me in general. and again i respect your erudition concerning the topic.

there were times when people KNEW what science was. later they were shown that they did not. thanks there are people with great stamina like Copernic, Galileo.

[Andrew Roussak]

hi Robert!

i've read the posts on this thread and i do believe you are a serious and involved person when it comes to the subject of evolution/ creation or creation/evolution. but i can't help being amazed at how you seem to be sure of what you're saying. to be honest i always had problems with certainty. since you're into science, i'm sure you know it. in many domains it's called the principle of precaution (at least that's how we call it in french). what i mean is that since there is still room for speculation in both sides on this topic, how would we be sure if fish was created as such, or if my super-grandfather was an ape? those who say they behold the truth terrify me in general. and again i respect your erudition concerning the topic.

there were times when people KNEW what science was. later they were shown that they did not. thanks there are people with great stamina like Copernic, Galileo.

Hi Sunwaiter,

I guess I know what you mean by that - but, the whole buzz about the ET ( evolution theory ) doesn't look like a scientific discussion anymore. What Dawkins makes, and how it is being reflected in mass-media ( I am very sorry to say, in most of them ) has not much to do with science. It is more about ideology and populism.

The truth is, ET is a scientific theory , and as such, has to be proven, or it has to be at least shown, that the general evolution clearly happens. But there is - literally - not a single evidence of it, which is somehow truthworthy ( there were some fakes, yes ). If the evolutionists fail to somehow explain the origin of life ( how the life had started ) - how can they explain how more complex structures have evolved? The ET - for now - consists of huge gaps with nothing to fill in them, and it is still being promoted as undoubtedly science and is being taught in schools. That is the point.

Concerning ID - intellectual design, or creation science - first of all, ID was , in fact, a direct answer to the rough populism of Dawkins ( a microbiologist Michael Behe , now prof. Behe , had read the book of Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" and came to an idea - hold-it, you can't be right on that. Behe was an atheist that time ( 1986 ). Now, he is one of the leading creation scientists ). More to it, the ID is still very young - many of their postulates condradict quite clear to the traditional views, but as usual - one simply needs time to prove or to refute them. What is clearly seen - the ID views do not contradict for example to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Theory of Information, Probability Theory. The evolutionists have huge problems on this field.


Cheers!!!
Andrew

[Robert Newman]

hi Robert!

i've read the posts on this thread and i do believe you are a serious and involved person when it comes to the subject of evolution/ creation or creation/evolution. but i can't help being amazed at how you seem to be sure of what you're saying. to be honest i always had problems with certainty. since you're into science, i'm sure you know it. in many domains it's called the principle of precaution (at least that's how we call it in french). what i mean is that since there is still room for speculation in both sides on this topic, how would we be sure if fish was created as such, or if my super-grandfather was an ape? those who say they behold the truth terrify me in general. and again i respect your erudition concerning the topic.

there were times when people KNEW what science was. later they were shown that they did not. thanks there are people with great stamina like Copernic, Galileo.

Hi there Sunwaiter,

You correctly ask how I can be sure of these things. Well, let me explain this.

Firstly (as I've already said) belief in creation IS a matter of faith, isn't it ? Nobody can scientifically prove or disprove creation. And I've said so from the very start.

But the 'theory of evolution' (so-called) is said to be science. It's taught in schools and colleges worldwide. In fact, its exponents say they have lots of hard evidence. Don't they ? Does it require any sort of faith to be an evolutionist ? Let's ask this simple question. Does it ? No, the evolutionist says he doesn't believe evolution is a matter of faith. He tells us he is simply being honest - with the facts of science. Doesn't he ?

So let's leave faith to one side. We either have it or we don't. Let's just see what the facts of science actually say. Whether they support the theory of evolution or if they do not. THAT's the issue.

You might believe there is no scientific alternative to evolution theory except creationism. But that is wrong, for the reasons I've just given above. In fact, the discoveries of science not only show 'evolution' is wrong but they also suggest something that CAN be proved. They suggest that the very same species we see in nature today are the SAME species which have existed throughout the entire history of life here on Earth. They are not different species. They are the very SAME species.

This view is, of course, able to be checked. The same as the views of evolutionists. Isn't it ?

So, I repeat, whether we have faith or not, let's see if species are really immutable, permanent, in nature or if they have 'evolved' from other species.

You say you 'always have problems with certainty'. Why ? Why do you have problems with certainty. Surely there are much greater problems with uncertainty. No ?

I am certain that the heart pumps blood around the body. I am so certain of it that I guarantee the heart will pump blood around the body for as long as man studies the body. Don't you agree ? Are YOU certain of that fact. I am certain that water is wet. I am certain that we cannot live without water. I am certain that science presupposes order in the universe, and not chaos. In fact, science is founded on certainty - the certainty that order exists and that it can be studied. I am certain that geology as a science exists because I see evidence for order. I am certain that science exists because it is the discovery of and the study of order in the finite realm. I am certain of it. And so are all scientists.

Why do you say then that you 'always have problems with certainty' ? There are countless examples of things which are clear, unambiguous and certain. Aren't there ?

It's simply that 'evolutionists' don't know what they are talking about. They invent fantastic, absurd, scenarios and they claim to have lots of 'evidence'. No sooner do we examine this evidence, scientifically, than it collapses in a heap and is proved to be false. So why do we teach this nonsense ?

Nature teaches us that 'species' exist. Doesn't it ? But when we ask an evolutionist for a definition of species he will look at his watch and then excuse himself. He simply doesn't know what he is talking about. But he tells you that 'species have evolved'. From 'other species'. In this game it's obvious that they can use anything to 'prove' their circular argument.

But the laws of nature say evolution has NOT happened. It says (and you can see it in the LAWS of heredity, for example) that a 'species' is really a living creature which belongs to a set, a group, of other living creatures known today as a 'genus'. Doesn't it ? A species is a very specific and not a vague thing. And a single species can exist in countless different forms. The same species. Isn't that true. Isn't it true that, for example, a particular species of flower can exist in many varieties ? Yet all these varieties are of one and the very same species. We should not confuse varieties with different species, should we ? But the evolutionist does so all the time.

You say 'those who say the behold the truth terrify me in general'.

Then, in that case, those who say the earth revolves around the sun terrify you also. Those who say that oxgen is an element, as is copper, and as is gold, terrify you also. For they are sure of it.

If evolution theory is taught in our schools shouldn't we have the right to know what is true and what is not true ? Shouldn't it be exposed as a fraud if, in fact, there are many powerful arguments against it ?

Regards

[sunwaiter]

laws and theories are somewhat unstable, just as one's belief (refering to mister Behe) and sometimes must be broken or revised. that's why i always prefer doubt to certainty. some say the lord works in mysterious ways. i guess it means we can't explain everything, no matter what we do. so why would science as it is today bring all the elements to prove, for example, that animals on earth are constantly evolving? we call it research. there can't be a final point to this kind of discussion, even if some people are wrong in their judgment at some time, wether they support the ID or the ET theory (and i stress the word THEORY). by the way, thanks for the acronymous formulas. helps a lot

just as i was interested in the famous global warming theory (which is to our fellow Corno Dolce a swindle, or hooey - he also seems to know what is true and what is false), i'm getting interested in the evolution versus creation discussion, as long as there is a discussion.

[sunwaiter]

oops, i was writing my last post as you were sending yours. so you know the order in which they came is not correct.

[Robert Newman]

Sunwaiter,

Shall I break the news to you gently ? Carrots, cabbages, dolphins, humming-birds, and oak trees do NOT have a common ancestor.

But if the discoveries of paleontology, biology, genetics, zoology, biology and other sciences don't impress you in this matter try the bible, which correctly teaches that 'every seed brings forth of its own kind'. There ! That IS precisely what we know for CERTAIN about living things. The evolution myth is complete nonsense and should not be taught in our schools. It's hocus pocus and is contrary to the actual discoveries of science.

Which is why evolutionists cannot/will not defend their dogmas fairly and honestly against those who know better.

'Every seed brings forth of its own kind'.

Thus, every species is contained, fixed, placed permanently, occupies uniquely, a particular place within its own 'kind'. The 'kind' being the genus. Whether its form changes or not. And that is exactly what we find in reality. Oranges bring forth oranges. Apples, apples. Whales whales. It cannot be more simple, can it ? The species is a permanent and integral part of nature. It is not a plastic entity which is becoming 'another species'. It is and will always be a unique species. In cases where species interact with each other it is because they are members of the same genus. And the way they can interact in breeding is determined by their own unique position within the genus of which they are both members.


Regards

Robert

[Andrew Roussak]

laws and theories are somewhat unstable, just as one's belief (refering to mister Behe) and sometimes must be broken or revised. that's why i always prefer doubt to certainty. some say the lord works in mysterious ways. i guess it means we can't explain everything, no matter what we do. so why would science as it is today bring all the elements to prove, for example, that animals on earth are constantly evolving? we call it research. there can't be a final point to this kind of discussion, even if some people are wrong in their judgment at some time, wether they support the ID or the ET theory (and i stress the word THEORY). by the way, thanks for the acronymous formulas. helps a lot

just as i was interested in the famous global warming theory (which is to our fellow Corno Dolce a swindle, or hooey - he also seems to know what is true and what is false), i'm getting interested in the evolution versus creation discussion, as long as there is a discussion.

Well, of course, but you still can't deny the fact that ET is being taught in schools and popularised by mass-media as the ONLY one "true" vision of how it all had happened. ET had 150 years to prove it was right and failed to bring out at least ONE evidence.
ID is, as I mentioned, a pretty new thing. Think of Mendel - he was laughed out by the evolutionists at the first line, because he was an augustinian monk etc. It took about 40 years that genetics was accepted as science - the modern biology , medicine would be impossible without genetics.
And then, there are also many scientists who don't support or belong to creation science, but nevertheless saying ET is wrong. If you take out an ambitious figure of Dawkins - how many supporters of ET will still be there?

[sunwaiter]

Robert:

i never talked about vegetables or trees. i was talking about what we call the animals.

you are right when you suggest that we can't be satisfied with vague knowledge, but it seems anyway that we don't share that much with vegetables. on the contrary, we share lots of things with apes, pigs, whales, etc, as you already know.

you just can't impose your truth to me, or to nobody. i don't feel that you want to discuss any point. it's a pity. i don't support any dogma. if i did, would i be trying to share my point of view? please don't be condescendant.

[sunwaiter]

Andrew :

you're right about schools, and all the rest, by the way.

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

Just as our brilliant colleague Robert Newman so cogently elocutes about examining the evidence, scientifically, about evolution, so do I, from a Science point of view, examine the phony evidence of *global warming* and find that it all collapses into a smoldering heap of slag that is as useless as salt that has lost its savor. True Science is not a spectator sport. Like Math, you must actively participate. You must learn how to do the scientific process. Doing science is not the same as simple verbal argument *pro et contra* on a public forum.

The now infamous phrase uttered by the *global warming phony* Algore - that of Consensus Science, is just empty rhetoric designed to fool the foolish. Consensus is not Science - Science is not consensus!

Best regards,

CD

Ps: Sunwaiter, our colleague Andrew Roussak is not being condescending towards you - He is trying to help you.

[Robert Newman]

i never talked about vegetables or trees. i was talking about what we call the animals.

you are right when you suggest that we can't be satisfied with vague knowledge, but it seems anyway that we don't share that much with vegetables. on the contrary, we share lots of things with apes, pigs, whales, etc, as you already know.

you just can't impose your truth to me, or to nobody. i don't feel that you want to discuss any point. it's a pity. i don't support any dogma. if i did, would i be trying to share my point of view? please don't be condescendant.

No, you never talked about vegetables or trees. But let's talk about them. Let's talk about living things generally. Are you ready ? The evolutionist says vegetables, trees, whales and humming birds are all descended from a common ancestor. But there is not a shred of evidence to support this dogma, is there ?

Which makes me wonder why evolution is taught in our schools. You see my point ? Maybe people choose to be ignorant ?

[sunwaiter]

Corno:

once again, you're being alittle too confident to inspire my trust. too bad.

i don't care about al gore, i've never seen his film.