I guess you have been hiding too long to know whats happening in
the world. Inter species breeding is happening among animals which
is where some new species of animals come from.
The only reason why this area of science is not progressing is
simply due to alot of human rights groups and animal rights groups
preventing science from doing experiments on animals and humans
which restricts the advances of science.
Even the food you eat, quite a number of been cross breed,
genetically modified etc such as all your seedless fruits and many
other fruits and vegetables been changed to make them more
resistant to pest and such. This is human involvement but it does
shows that genes can be change and altered and not set in
stone, never changing.
You're just a kid, how many years have even lived? When we talk
about evolution, we talk about thousands and even millions of
years. If you think every generation will have drastic changes, you
must be a bigger fool than i originally thought.
Since you say everything is created by god, please do not get
married, nor have sex etc. You are not god so you are not allowed
to create life. Let your family line die out and please do not aid
the evolution cycle by reproducing anymore of you. You might lead
to a new species of self delusion human beings that would be easily
wipeout and extinct anyway.
Meteoritic dust falls
on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions,
of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon
also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was
millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first
lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which
should have accumulated.
However, only about
one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young
moon.
Meteoritic material
contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in
the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure
for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or
billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of
meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young
earth.
The earth's magnetic
field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate.
At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have
equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence.
Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for
the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000
years ago would have dissolved the earth.
Charles Darwin stated,
in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely
imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do
not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the
extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.
He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record,
will rightly reject my whole theory."
Now, 130 years and
billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an
incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . .
forms of life by the finest graduated steps."
Out of the millions of
fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All
known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without
intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special
creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some
evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and
bird.
Archeopteryx is
discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the
Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects
of Archeopteryx, following here.
(The following six
points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma:
Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he
gathered from Hitching's book.)
1. It had a long bony
tail, like a reptile's.
In the embryonic stage,
some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They
later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The
tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to
those of Archeopteryx.
One authority claims
that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern
forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal
vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a
reptile.
2. It had claws on its
feet and on its feathered forelimbs.
However, many living
birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa
and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of
Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of
birds with claws on the wings.
3. It had
teeth.
Modern birds do not
have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the
Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were
transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx
with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some
with teeth and some without.
4. It had a shallow
breastbone.
Various modern flying
birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and
this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And
there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living
and extinct.
Recent examination of
Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the
feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says
that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of
modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and
parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.
5. Its bones were
solid, not hollow, like a bird's.
This idea has been
refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be
hollow.
6. It predates the
general arrival of birds by millions of years.
This also has been
refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist
from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the
Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a
fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.
This deposit is dated
as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which
Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and,
later, the remainder of the skeleton.
This was reported in
Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented,
"It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds
in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx
lived."
And so it goes with the
fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a
transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been
found.
In a letter to Luther
Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the
British Museum of Natural History, wrote:
"...I fully agree with
your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary
transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would
certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be
used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the
information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were
to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the
reader?"
Just think of it! Here
is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever
and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I
believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on
fossil evidence.
Darwin said that
embryological evidence was "second to none in importance." The idea
of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms
go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was
popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that
Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the
theory.
The main arguments for
embryonic recapitulation are the supposed "gill slits" (left over
from fish), "yolk sac" (left over from the reptile stage), and
"tail" (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so
called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration.
They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair
become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals;
the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and
thymus glands.
The yolk sac does not
store food because the mother's body provides this to the embryo.
In fact, the "yolk sac" is not a yolk sac at all, but its true
function is to produce the first blood cells.
The "tail" is just the
tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The
end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is
instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans
do.
Also arguing against
recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms
experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary
to the assumed evolutionary order.
The science of
probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even
with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the
Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some
amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws
of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming
into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single
protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are
revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the
earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were
available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and
one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing
the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein
molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power,
years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a
single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind -
which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the
119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of
paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill
up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even
write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one
living cell, smaller than any human cell!"
According to Emile
Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an
event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of
10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of
producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000
power.
Sir Fred Hoyle, British
mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine,
November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms
might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the
chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a
Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
As one can readily see,
here is yet one more test that evolution theory has
flunked.
The second law of
thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy
remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly
decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is
done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As
usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem
for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then
evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms
through mutation.
Some try to sidestep
this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments.
They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from
the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that
must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an
environment.
1. The system must be
an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing,
maintaining and replicating these energy conversion
mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to
evolutionary idealism.
Vestigial organs are
supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from
evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial
organs are based on those taken from the "Bible Science
Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.
1. Just because we
don't yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and
left over from previous stages of evolution.
2. This view is plain
false. In the 1800's, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in
the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of
these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the
thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the
development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now
known to fight disease.)
3. The fact that an
organ must sometimes be removed does not make it
vestigial.
4. The fact that one
can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it
vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are
not considered vestigial.
5. Organs are not
vestigial based upon your need or use of them.
6. According to
evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time,
vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these
"vestigial" organs, but we still have them.
7. If organs do become
useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and
the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation
of organs for new purposes.
8. Vestigial organs
prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires
new organs forming for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying
out.
9. Evolutionists have,
for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial
organs.
Evolutionists like to
tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the
fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today.
However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize.
This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels
buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe.
None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of
the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some
interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made
in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at
an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a
photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All
that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right
conditions, not thousands of years.
Seeing the problem of
gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt
appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge
have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated
equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus
leaving no transitional fossils in the geological
record.
Many top evolutionists
disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its
problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a
mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be
born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the
new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing
this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are
astronomical.
Homology is the
similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some
have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common
ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration
of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is
more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to
sheep.
But now, with the
development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison
of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new
dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists,
molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater
argument against evolution theory.
In molecular biology,
proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for
difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted
into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference
there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments
with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and
hemoglobin, found the following.
Dr. Denton states,
"There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional
evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.
Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish." The evidence is
clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!
Many of the radiometric
dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite
unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred
years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example,
a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings
said it had been dead for 3000 years.
Lava rocks from a
volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the
potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3
billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric
methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion
years.
Dating methods such as
potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on
assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to
lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted
to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a
half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too
little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must
know:
1. how much of the
parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start,
&
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore
these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen
is unless we were there when it was formed.
Evolutionists insist
that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared.
However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the
stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many
lands. These creatures were called dragons.
Many times in the
recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles
much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with
those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in
Texas.
Also not to be tossed
aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the
stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing
photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see
dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.
Recently, a Japanese
fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely
resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a
jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed
one, but their camera was damaged.
However, they tape
recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The
voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring.
You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did
live together at one time poses another problem for the
evolutionists.
"But if the dinosaurs
lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on
the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and
one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It
had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.
There would have been
plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering
that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or
"Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two
of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the
same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation
science.
The sun's diameter is
shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life
could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
Measurements of the
sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads
to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a
few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth
close to the biblical account.
The spin rate of the
earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the
billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the
centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
The 22nd edition of
Robert Young's concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written
accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than
7000 B.C.
Actually, I would appreciate it if you stop flaunting here and
there that you are a uni student. There is nothing special about
being a uni student, since in Singapore, if i throw a stone in the
crowd, I can easily hit the head of a university graduate. If you
would like it, go and get a PHd or a doctorate before you start
flaunting here and there. And if evolution is really right, Why do
I also see people who get doctorates, science degrees, going into
creationism?
I don't think people are worried about losing their faith. If
they stay in religion, they are constricted by many laws. Anyone
would want to break free. So I say evolutionists are the ones who
are engaging in massive cover-ups, because if religion is true,
they have to follow the restrictions of religion. Evolutionists
like this freedom and stay in it forever. You are biased in your
claims.
