Evolution Strikes Back
Criticism:
The last prominent creatoid died in 1945! Even he was ignorant in biology. Explains a lot.
(no response necessary)
Response:
I have been blindsided by evidence I had not considered. I did not realize that there were no living creatoids.
----
Criticism:
How then, do you explain that much of DNA consists of non-coding, "junk" elements? Why would God create a system like DNA -- including useless elements such as introns (a DNA base sequence interrupting the protein coding sequence of a gene)? DNA is full of components that no longer have a function. It's no more an example of God's perfect design than, say, the vermiform appendix, or male nipples, or pubic hair.
Response:
There is a good article that explains junk dna at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna
Most evolutionists are not willing to consider Christian sources so in a moment
I will also cite an evolution source that reaffirms what the creationists
believe.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/16/news-to-note-06162007
Since it is unlikely that an evolutionist will bother visiting a pro-creation
site, I have excerpted a portion of the article (at the bottom of this email)
where an evolutionist has stated that science is now discovering that the
so-called junk dna do in fact provide a function although science does not yet
understand all the functions of it. The great error of evolution is that they
assume that evolutionists have more answers than they really have. When
evolutionists did not understand the function of certain parts of the dna, they
jumped to the conclusion that it was junk. Over time they will have to retract
more and more of their assumptions. However, if history repeats itself, that
information will not make it down to the masses. Many disproved 'facts' are
still taught in text books and classrooms even though even the evolution
scientists themselves no longer accept the past assumptions.
In fact, your very email proves my statements to be true. Those who blindly
follow evolution never bother to question what they are taught or even look up
the information for themselves. The BBC has consistently been anti-creation and
pro-evolution, yet they even disagree with your claims as do evolution
researchers. On the article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4940654.stm, evolutionary
scientists have declared that so-called junk dna actually serve an important
function in the genome. This pro-evolution article states:
The term junk DNA refers to those portions of the genome which appear to have no specific purpose.
But a team from IBM has identified patterns, or "motifs", that were found both in the junk areas of the genome and those which coded for proteins.
The presence of the motifs in junk DNA suggests these portions of the genome may have an important functional role.
The findings are reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
--- end of quote ---
While evolution is dependent on myths like junk dna and other assumptions of
trash discarded through the evolutionary process, the facts show that what
evolution claims is worthless ends up serving important functions and does
indeed have a purpose. Just a simple search on the term junk dna revealed many
evolutionary sources that state that the previous assumption of junk dna is now
believed to be an incorrect assumption.
Since you do not understand why males have nipples, I suggest you study the
development of the human embryo and you will find your answer. If you do not
understand why we have body hair, research this and you will indeed see that it
has a function.
Your claim that the appendix is a vestigial organ also proves that what I am
saying is true. Almost all students of evolution are taught and blindly believe
that the appendix is a useless organ left over from evolution's history. This
alone shows that the evolutionist is completely out of touch with its own
science for the researchers have also abandoned this idea. The appendix performs
a vital function. Rather than taking my word for it, listen to the argument of
the pro-evolution Dr. Loren Martin of Oklahoma State University:
"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.
"Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.
"In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix--like the tiny structures called Peyer's patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract--takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual's own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is currently under investigation.
"In the past, the appendix was often routinely removed and discarded during other abdominal surgeries to prevent any possibility of a later attack of appendicitis; the appendix is now spared in case it is needed later for reconstructive surgery if the urinary bladder is removed. In such surgery, a section of the intestine is formed into a replacement bladder, and the appendix is used to re-create a 'sphincter muscle' so that the patient remains continent (able to retain urine). In addition, the appendix has been successfully fashioned into a makeshift replacement for a diseased ureter, allowing urine to flow from the kidneys to the bladder. As a result, the appendix, once regarded as a nonfunctional tissue, is now regarded as an important 'back-up' that can be used in a variety of reconstructive surgical techniques. It is no longer routinely removed and discarded if it is healthy.
Source: Scientific America @ http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3&topicID=12
--- end of article
This article was written in 1999. This FACT was well known among scientist
for the last decade, yet evolutionists still teach what science has clearly
disproven. It is not the creationists that is out of touch with science - it is
evolution.
-----
Article excerpt from answers in Genesis:
Answers in Genesis has long tried to show both the illogic and misunderstanding
such claims spread. For one thing, similar genomes do indicate similar
biological construction, but do not indicate common descent any more than they
indicate common design. For another thing, the supposed similarity is often
referenced without explanation of how the genomes are dissimilar.
Evolutionary science is just now catching up with the conclusions creationists
have already drawn. “A close-up view of the human genome has revealed its
innermost workings to be far more complex than first thought,” reports a BBC
NEWS article on a recent Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (Encode) study. Encode’s
goal is to build upon the successful mapping of the human genome by
understanding exactly how the genome works. The article explains:
The surprising results, explained Tim Hubbard from the Welcome Trust Sanger
Institute, “transform our view of the genome fabric.”
Previously, genome activity was thought of in terms of the 22,000 genes that
make proteins—the functional building blocks in our cells—along with patches of
DNA that control, or regulate, the genes.
The other 97% or so of the genome was said to be made up of “junk” DNA—so called
because it had no known biological function.
[...]
Dr Hubbard said: “We are now seeing the majority of the rest of the genome is
active to some extent.”
The reality is that human understanding of how genes actually control biological
construction is woefully inadequate, albeit advancing more each year. Claims
that genome similarity between chimps and humans “prove” evolution are not only
misleading; they are based on a considerably immature field of science.
----
Criticism:
This is a reaction to the page 'An Apologetic Defense of Creation' at http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/thinking.htm .
I could not believe how many lies you have on this
website. You speak in broad
generalizations and innuendo. Most
evolutionists ARE Christians. Even
the Pope acknowledges that evolution is the mechanism that God used to bring
about the world we find around us.
You
would do your cause better by sticking to the truth. I am just a kid in college,
but I know the difference between the truth and a lie.
You should be ashamed for some of the lies you print in an effort to
sound legitimate.
Response:
What lies? These are direct quotes from evolutionists. Present what you feel
like is a lie and we can discuss it. Everybody thinks it, everybody is doing it
and most people believe it is not a good measurement for truth. Most Christians
are not evolutionists, but even if they were, that is not how we should measure
truth. Most people believed Hitler and actively or passively assisted in the
massacres he masterminded. Even the church became a victim of abandoning the
truth. Most Christians believed that because everyone else agreed it must be
right. Deitrick Bonhoffer was a preacher who stood alone. He once
lectured before a convention of church leaders about the cost of discipleship
and the error of the church in Germany departing from truth to follow Hitler.
Every one of the pastors walked out in protest during this speech. At the end,
Deitrick stood alone. Was the crowd right just because most believed it?
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego were the only three men in a nation of God's people who stood for truth. They were troublemakers and menaces that disturbed the harmony of the nation. All they had to do was bow to a silly golden statue. It seems harmless, but to do so is a direct violation of God's word. I am sure every person in the nation felt right by bowing. Who was right?
Elijah stood alone in a nation that served Baal. He was an outlaw and called the 'troubler of Israel'. The government followed the crowd and the people followed the crowd. I am sure that many people asked Elijah why he stood alone when most of God's people believed Baal was compatible with the scriptures. They mixed and matched their faith with the world around them. Was Elijah wrong because he stood alone or right because he stood on truth?
In
Matthew 7:13 - 14 Jesus said, " Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
God does not grade on a curve and doesn't change based on the flow of the crowd. God's truth is not determined based on what most Christians believe. He is the standard we measure ourselves by. Truth is not measured by the crowd. We all will stand before God and will be measured based on whether we love the truth or the acceptance of the world.
----
Criticism:
This is a reaction to the page 'An Apologetic Defense of Creation' at http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/thinking.htm .
I
went to and skimmed that page. Of course, your message is mostly directed
towards fellow Christians, but there are many (myself included) who know that
evolution is true.
I
don't know of any charitable and kind way of putting this. Your arguments are
risible [this means to mock with laughter]. They do
not put Christianity in a good light, and the fact that you and others make such
pathetic arguments makes it harder for those who, like myself, try to make a
reasoned defense of Christianity.
I
could take more time and expose the fallacies, mis-perceptions and false facts
you have stated, but it seems almost superfluous when correct information is so
easy to get. Of course, you have complete freedom to make a fool of yourself.
But I would urge you, for the sake of the faith, to read more deeply, and more
importantly, more widely, before posting again.
Response:
It is interesting that the majority of the criticism I get is a dispute over the interpretation of the facts or it is a mysterious error or errors found on my page. This page cites very little creation resources. I build my entire argument on the direct, verbatim quotes of evolutionists themselves. I agree that the page is full of fallacies and false facts. This is the whole basis of this page. Evolutionists themselves present the 'facts' I address. My goal is to expose the fallacies hidden behind the web of crafty arguments. If I have misrepresented any of these quotes, I will gladly clarify it or remove it if I am in error. However, they are cut-n-paste quotations. Why do people call my evidence false and then refuse to identify the falsehood? Am I 'making a fool of myself' because I have falsified evidence or is this stated because I believe that the evidence points to creation and not evolution? It is not a tragedy to be called a fool, but it is a tragedy to deny the truth so as to not be called a fool.
----
Criticism:
This is a reaction to the page 'An Apologetic Defense of Creation' at http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/thinking.htm .
Since the pope said "evolution is more than a hypothesis" and that we should discuss "theories of evolution", and that "truth can't contradict truth" the quote is not within Catholicism. The Church reject atheistic evolution not theistic.
And since I'm assuming you reject both theories do you have a theory you'd like to propose that fits with science?
Response:
My theory is that if God created all things, all things should point to God. Science, if allowed to be presented un-biased it does point to creation. I propose that we look at Genesis 1:1 and explain why science points to this truth regardless of whether or not religious leaders side with evolution.
----
Criticism:
This is a reaction to the page 'An Apologetic Defense of Creation' at http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/thinking.htm .
Everyone is entitled to their own belief, but I do not find it hard to believe that God could have create a universe in which evolution plays a role. God is all powerful, and evolution would have been created by God. Stars in the sky are born and die, various species of animals from dinosaurs to dogs come and go over millions of years. If evolution is true, it is only true because God made it so.
It is unfair to point to scientists that study these questions and accuse them as if they were out to destroy God. Many of the great scientists have always kept God in the picture.
Response:
First, I never point to any scientists and accuse them of trying to destroy God. I do point out the way evolutionists misrepresent the facts, formulate assumptions and call them facts, then claim evidence based solely on the assumptions they have created. I see nothing wrong with pointing out the public admissions of no evidence but then claiming to have proved evolution true.
Second, if God created evolution, then God did not write the scriptures. The scripture is completely incompatible with evolution. The Bible says that death came into the world because of sin and sin by Adam. Evolution, as admitted in this criticism, requires millions of years of death before Adam arrives on the scene. The New Testament states that because of Adam's sin, Jesus Christ came to become the second Adam to defeat sin and death and offer us life. To side with evolution undermines the basic foundation of both the Old and New Testaments.
Psalm 138:2 says, " I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name."
The Bible also says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." (Matthew 24:35, Luke 21:33). If you claim that Genesis is false and thereby nullify the Bible's claims that Jesus was the second Adam, you are challenging God's claim against your own human wisdom. It is arrogant for us to see God describe creation and then to say, "No God, it happened this way". The facts are the same for both creation and evolution. The dispute is over whether 'Evolution' did it, or God did it. We know God did not create evolution because that contradicts God's revealed word.
It is also worth noting that most prominent scientists in the past who 'kept God in the picture' also believed in creation.
----
Criticism:
This is a reaction
to the page 'An Apologetic Defense of Creation' at http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/thinking.htm
.
RE:"The Psychology behind the argument"
That's interesting. The same argument has been used to
accurately define creationists.
The big difference being, scientists HAVE facts, data
and evidence to support their claims - creationists have NOTHING but
insanely zealous religious claims .. and their own warped psychology!
Response:
It is interesting that he claims that evolution uses the same arguments. My entire page is filled with quotes by evolutionists. Do evolutionists use their own contradictory quotes and admissions of missing evolutionary data to criticize creationists? This tells me that he has not read this information. I find that very rarely do critics get beyond the first few paragraphs. Once they see the argument is against evolution, they react and turn away from the evidence. Is it my insanely zealous religion when I quote Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould and other evolutionists?
----
Criticism:
I ask Why do all creationist limit God's power. For one thing there is no evidence that the Flood was world wide, The Bible doesn't support a world wide Flood. Then where did all the water go after the rain ended?
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old and there is enough evidence to prove it, on the other hand creationist have no
scientific data to prove anything. I Believe that God is the creator of all things including space-time and all exisiting things. That God is God of all TIME and SPACE, and that 20 billion years is nothing to The MOST POWERFUL GOD in creating this UNIVERSE. How dare anyone limit HIS power over all things. I Believe in the BIG BANG and you know who caused the BIG BANG, and before THE BANG there was GOD.
There is more evidence to prove that God is the master of evolution, and therefore of creation it self. I don't know where you get your information, but it is incomplete. There is no data to prove creation as you and all creationist see it, but only lip service. Only speculation and
assumtions, rule in your camp. God indeed created this earth but He took HIS sweet time doing it, sence TIME is HIS he can do want HE wants.
Response:
This is a lot of objections to handle in this brief response.
First, How is Biblical creation limiting God's power? The Bible says God created in 6 days, evolution says it took 4.5 billion years. Immediate results diminish God's power? I don't understand this thinking. Believing the Bible's claim that God used a world-wide flood diminishes God, but saying it could only have been localized does not?
Second, many in the church put their faith in evolution and not God. There is nothing to indicate 4.5 billion years. This is speculation at best and 'modern dating' excludes contrary results. Most people don't understand that dating method results point more to a young earth than an old one. Over 90% of dating tests show a young earth and less than 10% point to millions or billions of years. This tells us two things. 1 - the dating method doesn't stand on solid accuracy. 2 - people who believe in billions of years are doing so on pure faith. If 90% of the evidence points away from evolution and people still believe in evolution, the 10% is taken on faith alone.
Third, the "Bible does not support the idea of a world wide flood"? The Bible
says,
Genesis 7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.
20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.
The high hills under the whole heaven were covered...15 cubits over the mountains...how does this point to a local flood only? Admit that you don't believe the scriptures if that is your position, but don't claim that the Bible supports your denial. There is also plenty of evidence supporting the flood. There is no point in rehashing it again, I have a complete study at http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/gen/the_flood.htm .
Fourth, 'You don't have evidence for creation'. This is a common argument thrown in by evolutionists. It is clearly a double standard. They claim that God or creation can't be proven, therefore it is false. But then they claim that evolution can't be disproven, therefore it must be true. What is the basis of the evidence for evolution? 'Most scientists believe...'. Faith in evolution is not proof or evidence. Each side cannot be proven. What can be proven is the facts observed in science. We look at these facts and choose which we believe. This claim that creation is all based on assumptions is false as well. True that we do have to put our faith in evolution or creation at some point, however, the facts are tangible. Evolution is truly assumption based. I show this by quoting from evolution leaders in my study on Evolution and Critical thinking.
----