https://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolutionism
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the overconfident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical method of paleontology or biology and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling 'Darwin is God and I so and so is his prophet.'- The recent researches of workers like Dean Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of Darwinian Jericho."-Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1966)
The other isms! Naturalism, Atheism, Materialism, Uniformitarianism, Darwinism, Humanism, Relativism, Socialism, Feminism, Globalism, Communism, Fascism, Racism.
Definition of ism
(Entry 1 of 2) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ism
1: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2: an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief
Historical bias) "Very shortly after the publication of his Principles, Lyell read the geological theory of Frenchman Elie de Beaumont which contradicted his own views. Elie de Beaumont claimed that whilst there were long periods of tranquil deposition, mountains were upthrust by violent forces.
In discussing the whole controversy, Wilson in his biography of Lyell, says the ".... theory brought together a broad range of facts about the structure of the alps...." and that it was "... supported by an engaging array of geological evidences, some of it new..." He refers to the rigorous way in which Sedgwick championed the theory in his presidential address to the Geological Society, in the course of which he said that it was ".... based on an immovable mass of evidence..." and that Sedgewick agreed with the conclusions, because they were not based on a priori reasoning but on the evidence of the facts.." [27p 350].
Wilson however continues:
" In attempting to counteract catastrophism Lyell was at a fundamental disadvantage because the basic appeal of catastrophic doctrine was not rational but emotional. It seemed to offer a new prop to the crumbling foundations of religious cosmogony. It was not that Sedgwick would admit that there was anything whatever wrong with the foundations of religion, but the very speed with which he accepted Elie de Beaumont's sweeping theories is suggestive of an underlying anxiety. [!] In judging the two doctrines there was no critical piece of evidence to which one could point to decide which one was true. Both carried a vast array of geological evidence in their train Lyell could show that particular pieces of evidence which Elie de Beaumont had used were not sound, or that they could be interpreted another way, this, however, was only to whittle at the edges of the theory and do little to dislodge the central faith which, he said, experience had shown to be more productive of new discoveries and new truths in geology. He was keenly aware that the issue was one of opposing faiths."[27p350] " Quoted from The Rise of the Evolution Fraud by Malcolm Bowden ch. 5 Fortunes of the uniformitarian theory pg. 29-30"I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems" Charles Lyell in a letter writing to George Paullete Scrope june 1, 1830
Katherine Lyell Life, letters and journals of Sir Charls Lyell, Bart., I: p. 268-271.
Evolutionism claims to be an innocent but objective scientific discovery of truth. But historically it was in fact biased. Evolutionary conclusions should not therefore be taken upon faith or trust, they have to survive criticism.
Inescapable design)"On the general the hypothesis of evolution, as applied to the organic world, I have nothing to say except that, within certain limits, it seems to me extremely probable, and supported by a large body of evidence. This, however, only refers to the fact of a genetic relationship of some kind between the different species of plants and animals, and does not affect the means by which this development may be supposed to be brought about. On the subject two views may be held. The first is, that evolution results from the development from within; in which case, obviously, the argument from design stand precisely where it did, except that the sphere of its application is enormously extended." pg.99 James Orr The Christian Vew of God and the World co. 1893
The theory of evolution is supposed to override the teleological argument, the argument from design. However the complexity does not escape just because there is a change in the method of it's origin. In fact it would make a greater responsibility of complexity to have organisms with both a structure and an extra ability come up with a new structure would point to a greater need of an ingenious designer.
Now the most condemning piece of evidence in this last quote is the date of publishing. Actually it might be older because that was the date of the preface!
This argument is about 130yrs old. The large body of evidence was referring to what was gathered at the beginning of the theory. So this begs the question if we have discovered evidence of creation in the last 130yrs! Science is supposed to be open to all options. Other wise it is not science. Therefore we should look at the evidence afresh. Yet,if the existence of God is not truly erased by evolution, then we have a God and therefore we have an omnipotent source capable of creation.
Darwinian evolution (as if evolution is only a biological notion)
"The Act is self-contradictory and compliance is impossible unless the
public schools elect to forego significant potions of subjects such as
biology, world history, geology, zoology, botany, psychology,
anthropology, sociology, philosophy, physics and chemistry. Presently,
the concepts of evolutionary theory as described in 4(b) permeate the
public textbooks." Judge William Overton 1982 Arkansas creation trial
Public School Science education uses evolutionism in most scientific subjects as a result they will not want to give up their entire system of education.This is important because Public education is not legally allowed to be sectarian even though it clearly is doing that!!!
For instance here is the law in my state.
"
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KY EDUCATION Section 189
School money not to be used for church, sectarian, or denominational school
No portion of any fund or tax now existing or that may hereafter be raised or levied, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aide of, any church, sectarian, or denominational school "What is sectarian? This is sectarianism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sectarian
Simple Definition of sectarian:relating to religious or political sects and the differences between them
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect or sectarian2 : limited in character or scope : parochial
Thus the teaching of evolutionism defies religious liberty. This doctrine is there for the promotion of a metaphysical doctrine to impose a state religion.
Now evolutionism HAS to be metaphysical at it's essence because... as will be demonstrated it is certainly not physical!!
inductive fallacy:"Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.
For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.
All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.
No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true."
Stephen's Guide to logical fallacies (Stephen Downes University of Alberta)
Modern science is not the only method of understanding. In fact it has limitations and when people assume it has no limitations that's where they commit this fallacy. Our certainty of science is gaged by the amount of evidence or information we have acquired. So long as there is a percentage or chance of being wrong then we have not obtained objectivity.
Naturalism is the philosophy that undergirds a secular understanding of science all science has to be based upon the foundation of naturalism or else all hope for secular certainty is forever lost and religion is the winner by default.
The most impressive quality about the atheist position is that it possesses such an amazing ability to flee any form of intellectual accountability.
For instance "Atheism" is a philosophic position, and an Atheist will claim they are therefore not religious. When in fact they do have a designation religiously as "Secular Humanists" They also claim they have not burden of proof by hiding their other designation as "Materialists". Just the same recent evolutionists like to segregate the concept of evolution as only Darwinism. When in reality evolutionism applies to the entire process! However another concept which connects the humanist worldview is naturalism.
All secular science must operate underneath the premise of naturalism and therefore every aspect of evolutionary religion is in jeopardy if naturalism is destroyed.
So if we are going by evidence alone then we can never rely upon logic or rationalism. Now let's Summarize the rest of Clark's Argumentation.
If we rely exclusively upon reason then the problem is how do we verify evidence? How do we know that we are not experiencing dreams, illusions, sickness, coma, insanity or grand delusions and mirages? Rene Descartes argued for reason starting with an ontological Argument for God, John Locke argued for evidence through an evidential argument for God. It would be Imanuel Kant who would merge the 2 systems together and remove God. However, the two systems based upon each other then boils down to the fallacy of circular reasoning. The disconnect of evidence and logic simply trades their epistemic failures and is reduced to baselessness.
Then Existentialism came into society as the hopeful intellectual Savior. But the leap of faith makes irrationalism and subjectivity reign over the mind. And of course this oils down to intellectual death. Thus just as nihilism almost destroyed society in the 19th century, It's offspring postmodernism looks to destroy the mind of modern man and thus the modern worldview is dead on arrival.
Human history can not observe the 3,100,000,000 years of life 4,600,000,000 years of earth or the 13,800,000,000 years of the big bang theory. "Civilization, as historians identify it, first emerged between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago when people began to live in organized communities with distinct political, military economic and social structures. Religious, intellectual, and artistic activities also assumed important functions in these early societies."
"Although Historians use documents to create their pictures of the past, such written records do not exist for the prehistory of humankind. Consequently, the story of early humanity depends on archaeological and more recently biological information, which anthropologists use t create theories about our early past. Although modern science has fostered the development of more precise methods, much of our understanding of early humans relies upon considerable conjecture."
Comprehensive Volume WORLD HISTORY by William Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel Math
With the limit of historical observation, millions and billions of years are speculative. And here is where we see the inductive fallacy at work. BY speculating on the past we are not only uncertain and coming up with "ad hoc" theories. And so the errors will mount."The French expert on probability, Emile Borel, developed the “single law of chance” (Ankerberg &; Weldon, 1998: 183). Any process or entity having a probability of existence lower than 1 chance in 1050 is said to never occur. This denominator is incredibly large, but for the benefit of evolutionary theory, it will be used as an example to logically falsify the possibility of any evolutionary process. David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, explained that “the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations ‘is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility’—the chance that it could have happened ‘anywhere in the universe…is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942’” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 182). This probability is 102,999,892 smaller than the “single law of chance” and therefore, must be treated as strictly impossible. For a slight comprehension as to the magnitude of this small possibility, Ankerberg and Weldon write, “A picosecond is one-trillionth of a second. In 15 billion years, there are 1030 picoseconds” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 185). The age of the earth proposed by evolutionary theory is only 5 billion years. Surely, an evolutionary event with a probability less than 1 in 1050 is proof enough of the irrationality of evolutionary theory." http://chiefcornerstone.info/2011/11/evolution-chances/
Without historical observation the mathematics has to be the strongest tool in the evolutionary toolbox. However chance probablility actually contradicts evolution!!
Abiogenesis)
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation. The Creator must have created the first organism, or a few first organisms, from which all others are derived,....."
The History of Creation, Vol. I (of 2), by Ernst Haeckel Ch. 13pg.348-349
Haeckel was one of the most influential Darwinist is world history. If evolution were scientific, it would be falsifiable. Therefore, this proposition of spontaneous generation is the one doctrine Haeckel claims to be falsifiable. So if Spontaneous generation is falsified, then so is evolution.
Pasteur was responsible for crushing the doctrine of spontaneous generation. He performed experiments that showed that without contamination, microorganisms could not develop. Under the auspices of the French Academy of Sciences, he demonstrated that in sterilized and sealed flasks nothing ever developed, and in sterilized but open flasks microorganisms could grow. This experiment won him the Alhumbert Prize of the academy.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur"
Pasteur showed that you can not get life from nonlife. Therefore logically evolution was falsified.... in the 1800s!!!!
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with forty thousand naughts after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981.
This article came out before William Overton rendered his verdict on creationism in the famous Arkansas creation trial and it was in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Just in time for the theory to be debunked.... again!!!!
Darwinian evolution (as if evolution is only a biological notion)
"The Act is self-contradictory and compliance is impossible unless the public schools elect to forego significant potions of subjects such as biology, world history, geology, zoology, botany, psychology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, physics and chemistry. Presently, the concepts of evolutionary theory as described in 4(b) permeate the public textbooks." Judge William Overton 1982 Arkansas creation trial
It is obvious that evolutionary philosophy or Evolutionism permeates all public education and they do not want to turn from such a massive lie that would for ever alter government and society.
The uniformitarian- evolution house of cards
'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extant 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" Charles Darwin Origin of Species 6th edition (1901) pg. 341-342
So here Darwin has admitted the falsifiability of evolution based on the falsification of the geological record.
"The part of geology that deals with the tracing of the geologic record of the past is called historic geology. Historic Geology relies chiefly on Paleontology, the study of fossil evolution, as preserved in the fossil record, to identify and correlate the lithic records of ancient time."-*O.D. von Engel and K.E. Caster, Geology(1952) p. 423
However, the geological record is entirely based on evolutionary theory!!
"Whatever the method or approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts... There is no place on earth where a complete record of the rocks is present.... To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be placed together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record. If the complete history of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of 30 volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattering bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words of letters." Brown Monnet and Stovel Introduction to Geology
The geological column is not complete enough to justify itself. it is only conjecture and so the theory of Evolution is falsified.....AGAIN!!!
"The part of geology that deals with tracing the geologic record of the past so called historic geology. Historic geology relies chiefly upon paleontology, the study of fossil organisms.... The geologist utilizes knowledge of organic evolution, as preserved in the fossil record to identify and correlate the lithic records of ancient time." O.D.von Engeln and K.D. Caster: Geology (New York, Macgraw-Hill, 1952), p.423.
So if historic geology is wrong it would imply the evolutionary paleontology is also wrong,
"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists, the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."—*David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," in Evolution, September 1974, p. 466.
Now here we see not only how The Darwinism is going get a monopoloy on scientific dating methods!
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute Dating methods that they are claimed be. Age estimates on a given geologic stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutley reliable long term 'clock'" William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1977), P. 84.
"Radiomtric Dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." J.E.O'Rourke " Pragmatism verses Materialism in Stratigraphy." American Journal of Science, Vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54
So in essence, the radiometric dating, like the geologic column is rigged! The universities offer you the truth the same way a carnival hustler offers you a prize!!
The "Falssil Record!"
What does a fossil tell us?
A. The Animal died) even at this, there is some guess work especially in microbiology
b. The animal had progenitors
c. The animal died catastrophically
What the fossils can not tell us
A. The nature of it's flesh) now granted their can be traces of residue but often this is even not the case.
B. Whether or not the creature had children or any other future generations
C. Whether or not the species' children mutated to another species
D. Whether or not the species Progenitors had previously mutated
Fossils are not normal events of decay. Normally predators and scavengers destroy any remains of life. Thus fossilization is not a normal event. Which means it can not be a "normal" chronological record. Thus it is more likely that fossils are the work of catastrophes.
"We find mammals in almost all of our (dinosaur dig ) sites . These were not noticed years ago . We have about 20,000 pounds bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher . It's not that they are not important , it's just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals . I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs ."
Interview with Dr Donald Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum by Dr Carl Werner, 13 February 2001, in Living Fossils—Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, New Leaf Press, 2009, p. 173
This form of argumentation(made famous by Dr. Kent Hovind) points us to the fact that the entire paradigm of uniformitarianism and Darwinism is entirely based on conjecture. We are looking at the evidence with ad hoc reasoning!
"No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms." G.ledyard Stibbins, Process of orgsnic evolution, p.1
There is proof of macro evolution. Most YE creationist especially leaders (Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Henry Morris) affirm "micro-evolution"(though some may word it differently). Thus the evolution which is contrary to scripture is admitted to have no scientific observation in geology and paleontology and biology. [this will be shown more in this article.]
Taxonomy has been destroyed by evolution and can not give us a factual history.
A New Scientist article cautioned its readers: “If you want to
know how all living things are related, don’t bother looking in any
textbook that’s more than a few years old. Chances are that the tree of
life you find there will be wrong”. Spinney, L., Back to their roots,
New Scientist 194(2608):48–51, 2007."According to the authors view which I think nearly all biologist must share, the species is the only taxonomic category that has, at least in more favorable examples, a completely objective existence. Higher categories are all more or less a matter of opinion." G.W. Richards "A guide to the practice of modern taxonomy," in Science, March 13, 1970, p. 1477[comment made during review of Mayr's systematic zoology].
SO, the geologic column is Ad hoc as well the evolutionary tree. What we are left with is fantasy and faith.Death of Macroevolution: biological forms not transforming according scientific record
E Coli is Ecoli after 50,000 generations
"When after 50,000 generations Ecoli refused to evolve into something else. And evolutionist found that they were about to embark on a new discovery that evolution never happened!" Creationists Isaac Bourne
Here in this video we see evolutionist bragging about th changes after this many generatgions and yet the Bacteria is still bacteria
"When after 50,000 generations Ecoli refused to evolve into something else. And evolutionist found that they were about to embark on a new discovery that evolution never happened!" Creationists Isaac Bourne
Here in this video we see evolutionist bragging about th changes after this many generatgions and yet the Bacteria is still bacteria
"When it comes to evolution, there is no such thing as perfection. Even in the simple, unchanging environment of a laboratory flask, bacteria never stop making small tweaks to improve their fitness.
That’s the conclusion of the longest-running evolutionary experiment carried out in a lab.
In 1988, Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing began growing 12 cultures of the same strain of Escherichia coli bacteria. The bacteria have been growing ever since, in isolation, on a simple nutrient medium – a total of more than 50,000 E. coli generations to date.
Every 500 generations, Lenski freezes a sample of each culture, creating an artificial “fossil record”. This allows him to resurrect the past and measure evolutionary progress by comparing how well bacteria compete against each other at different points in the evolutionary process.
No upper limit
After 10,000 generations, Lenski thought that the bacteria might approach an upper limit in fitness beyond which no further improvement was possible. But the full 50,000 generations of data show that isn’t the case. When pitted against each other in an equal race, new generations always grew faster than older ones. In other words, fitness never stopped increasing."
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24588-perfection-is-a-myth-show-50000-bacterial-generations/#ixzz6NI6EY4gZNow the question is, at what stage will the bacteria evolve into another animal??
"The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old! " https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html
So, if we accept the evolutionary paradigm, then bacteria have reproduced a nearly infinite amount of generations and preserved the same species!!!!!!
if 30 years produced 50,000 generations of bacteria how much did 3.8 billion produce?!?
Afer looking at a calculator it says....
633,333,350,000
633 billion generations of bacteria and we still have bacteria!!!!!!
Even if we adjusted it to a changing rate; the idea of any necessity for macro evolution is abysmal.
Also let's not forget according to this dating abiogenesis only had 300 million years to happen!
Embryological relations)
"Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, has exposed this further fraud, in an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology,8 recently reviewed in Science9 and New Scientist.
Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong with Haeckel’s drawings, ‘because they didn’t square with his [Richardson’s] understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive features’.8 He could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one species with those of another, so that ‘no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea’.8
He therefore assembled an international team to do just that—examine and photograph ‘the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel’.8
The team collected embryos of 39 different creatures, including marsupials from Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from France, and an alligator embryo from England. They found that the embryos of different species are very different. In fact, they are so different that the drawings made by Haeckel (of similar-looking human, rabbit, salamander, fish, chicken, etc. embryos) could not possibly have been done from real specimens.
Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times (London).11 In an article describing Haeckel as ‘An embryonic liar’, he quotes Richardson:
‘This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.’ 11"Fraud rediscovered:
It has long been known that one of the most effective popularizers of evolution fudged some drawings, but only now has the breathtaking extent of his deceit been revealed.
by Russell Grigg www.creation.com
Now, in the beginning of evolutionary studies the lamarckians proposed that evolution occurs within the generations, but that was thoroughly debunked and the Russian communist played that scenario out to it's destruction. so the NEO-Darwinians insisted that the chang occurs within the embryo. Which is why the propaganda of Haekel's drawings is still perpetrated in public schools to this day! But How now is evolution even possible!?
Harvard paleontologist Stephen J Gould when faced with the lack of evidence in the fossil record suggest "punctuated Equilibrium" or "Evolutionary leaps" So that these massive changes might occur very rapidly and unnoticed. But now, genetic science has shown that our genes are not capable of such a shift.
The Dependency Graph of Life
Winston Ewert* Biologic Institute, Redmond, Washington, USA
Abstract The hierarchical classification of life has been claimed as compelling evidence for universal common ancestry. However, research has uncovered much data which is not congruent with the hierarchical pattern. Nevertheless, biological data resembles a nested hierarchy sufficiently well to require an explanation. While many defenders of intelligent design dispute common descent, no alternative account of the approximate nested hierarchy pattern has been widely adopted. We present the dependency graph hypothesis as an alternative explanation, based on the technique used by software developers to reuse code among different software projects. This hypothesis postulates that different biological species share modules related by a dependency graph. We evaluate several predictions made by this model about both biological and synthetic data, finding them to be fulfilled."
https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewFile/BIO-C.2018.3/BIO-C.2018.3
"Indeed, what they refer to as a “consensus of domain experts” seems to reflect mere belief on Stoeckle and Thaler’s part rather than an actuality. Certainly they must be relying on belief, because they cannot possibly have actually verified that there is consensus on the classification of organisms, for, as they themselves say, there are millions of them. Moreover, the fact that classifications at every taxonomic level continue every year to be revised suggests that this consensus is a figment. So I think their statements just reflect their faith that these “domain experts” have done their work correctly." http://www.macroevolution.net/why-should-mitochondria-define-species-Stoeckle-and-Thaler-2018.html
"The point here is that the accuracy of a scientific theory, by itself, means very little. It must be considered along with parsimony. This lesson is important today in this age of Big Data. Analysts know that a model can always be made more accurate by adding more terms. But are those additional terms meaningful, or are they merely epicycles? It looks good to drive the modeling error down to zero by adding terms, but when used to make future forecasts, such models perform worse. There is a very real penalty for adding terms and violating Occam’s Razor, and today advanced algorithms are available for weighing the tradeoff between model accuracy and model parsimony."
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/?fbclid=IwAR2tXY_kTkom6S188Q9sTaM4zE89I-QuSqF2M236Lzf9KH-Pd4q9LPvUOq8
"Epigenetic modifications are chemical tags that are added along chromosomes in specific patterns that control how genes are expressed. At present, 12 different types of gene regulating modifications (i.e., chemical tagging) to histone proteins that package the DNA molecule are well-documented in the human genome.2 In addition to the modification of histones, the DNA molecule itself can be tagged by methyl groups on the cytosine nucleotide bases. Thus, the combinatorial epigenetic code is exceedingly complex, but key to understanding how the genome works. While the DNA code is closely similar in all cells throughout the human body, the epigenetic code and its patterns vary depending on cell and tissue type.2 Because these epigenetic patterns control how genes are expressed in the cell, evolutionists have been interested in comparing the patterns between humans and apes to check for commonalities and dissimilarities. Interestingly, a comparative epigenetic study just published by evolutionary scientists completely contradicts the standard, inferred evolutionary tree for human-ape evolution. In this study, researchers examined the DNA methylation patterns in the blood cells of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.1 They focused on the areas of chromosomes 21 and 22 that are highly similar among all four human and ape genomes. The regions between the chromosomes that were too dissimilar (>98.8 percent identical) were not compared. Another recent study has shown that overall, chimp chromosomes 21 and 22 are on average 76.2 and 77.9 percent similar, respectively, in their actual DNA sequence compared to human.3 Thus, there are areas on these chromosomes that are very similar and other regions that are not. Comparative epigenetics, like many other types of evolutionary DNA studies, can only be done on the areas between chromosomes that are highly similar. In the study, 16 different regions were identified that exhibited strong DNA methylation pattern differences between humans and chimps. These regions were then chosen for further comparison with gorillas and orangutans. The regions were also highly different between humans and the other apes, but not in the levels and patterns one might anticipate based on evolutionary predictions. When the researchers used the DNA methylation data from the 16 different regions to form an evolutionary tree, it was completely backwards compared to the commonly believed order of evolution for apes that supposedly led up to humans. (See Figure below.) Orangutans, who supposedly are the least evolved among apes compared to humans, actually had more DNA methylation patterns similar to humans than chimps or gorillas. And if that was not enough, gorillas were the next closest in similarity to humans with chimps falling out last! According to evolutionary predictions, chimps should have been most similar to humans, then gorillas, and lastly orangutans."https://www.icr.org/article/epigenetic-study-produces-backwards
If evolution is simply an idea and the evidence has stopped supporting it you need a new idea. Or better yet go back with the unfalsified idea of God and creation!!!!Man and Dinosaurs/dragons together!!!
"The Belief in Dragons seems to have risen without the slightest knowledge on the part of the ancients of the gigantic and astonishingly dragon-like extinct reptiles of the past ages" Encyclopedia Britannica volume 7 Dragons
Earlier generations seem to have suffered cognitive dissonance as popular scientific opinion dated dinosaurs to be millions of years separated from mankind's History. Yet they still acknowledged That the mythology of the Ancient experience looked quite like what had been lying the fossil beds.
Histories
"Dragons are among the most popular and enduring of the world's mythological creatures.
Dragon tales are known in many cultures, from the Americas to Europe, and from India to China. They have a long and rich history in many forms and continue to populate our books, films and television shows. It's not clear when or where stories of dragons first emerged, but the huge, flying serpents were described at least as early as the age of the ancient Greeks and Sumerians. For much of history dragons were thought of as being like any other mythical animal: sometimes useful and protective, other times harmful and dangerous." https://www.livescience.com/25559-dragons.html
Well why is world civilization so unified concerning a myth?
"The most fascinating explanation involves an unexpected animal: the human. In his book An Instinct for Dragons, anthropologist David E. Jones argues that belief in dragons is so widespread among ancient cultures because evolution embedded an innate fear of predators in the human mind. Just as monkeys have been shown to exhibit a fear of snakes and large cats, Jones hypothesizes that the trait of fearing large predators—such as pythons, birds of prey and elephants—has been selected for in hominids. In more recent times, he argues, these universal fears have been frequently combined in folklore and created the myth of the dragon."https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-did-dragons-come-from-23969126/ Well why is world civilization so unified concerning a myth?
Monkeys are afraid of snakes and large cats because they live amongst snakes and large cats!! Assuming that Man is afraid of a creature he never met, but is identical to a real creature which people assume he never met is just plain nonsensical.
Archaeology
"Ancient people may have discovered dinosaur fossils and understandably misinterpreted them as the remains of dragons. Chang Qu, a Chinese historian from the 4th century B.C., mislabeled such a fossil in what is now Sichuan Province. Take a look at a fossilized stegosaurus, for example, and you might see why: The giant beasts averaged 30 feet in length, were typically 14 feet tall and were covered in armored plates and spikes for defense."https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-did-dragons-come-from-23969126/
So being that they are connected, the idea that the dinosaurs were dragons iving amongst man becomes the more natural approach.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythic-creatures/dragons/natural-history-of-dragons
The ICA Stones
"I would have dismissed the Ica Stones on th basis that dinosaurs and man missed each other by at least sixty-three million years. However, I couldn't explain why the Ica, Peru Regional Museum had a collection of engraved stones that had been discovered by Peruvian archaeologists in official excavations at pre-Columbian Indian cemeteries. Among the stones is one with a pterasaur on it with outstretched wings, serpentine neck, flamboyant cranial crest, and other features unmistakably associated with our modern knowledge of what a pterosaur looks like. Must be a mistake; pterosaurs were stone dead sixty-five million years ago, or were they? More problematic information surfaced when it was revealed that archaeologists excavating at Ica, Tiahuanaco, and Nazca cemeteries near Ocucaje, Peru had unearthed engraved stones; engraved stones that defy evolutionary explanations, for etched on the stones from Pre-Columbian Indian tombs dating roughly from 500A.D. to 1000A.D. were the depictions of a five toed Llama and a fish from the Mesozoic. The five toed Llama allegedly became extinct 40 million years ago. Surely something fishy was going on? "pg. 9-10
"Those who dismiss the Ica Stones simply because of the lifeforms (dinosaurs) on the stones are operating on presumption not fact. Evolutionists claimed that the Coelecanth fish was immediately dubbed the exctinct for 70 million years. Then in 1938, a coelacanth was caught off the coast of the Comoros Islands. An amateur ichthyologist recognized it from fossils dating back 400 million years. The discovery of the coelacanth fish was immediately dubbed the "greatest scientific find of the century. One evolutionist said that the discovery was the equivalent of finding a dinosaur walking around in your backyard.
"Surprisingly, the Mayan Indians were quite conversant with the coelacanth hundreds of years earlier. Two ex voto model coelacanth fish cast by Mayan silversmiths have been found in villages in Spain. These intricate, beautifully crafted silverfish, have coelacanths unmistakable paired lobed fins, extra dorsal fin, puppy dg tail as well as other anatomical features. Donal de Sylva said the mayans had to see the coelacanth in real life. "For even the best of Artisans to achieve such life like perfection from a fossil seems incredible." Did pre-Columbians see dinosaurs?" pg. 121-122
Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines Dennis Swift
"From early times. the pre-Hispanic cultures knew how to melt copper and alloy it with other metals. This technology development made possible the invention of metal tools such as chisels, punches, saws, axes etc. allowing them to work Stones and other materials to an amazing degree of sophistication and perfection.
Archaeological digs have brought to light vestiges of tools made of various types of metals used to work the hardest stones and woods, also found were very thin and sharp needle-like implements capable of piercing hard materials when more delicate and refined was called for. Other tools made of metal or alloys were saws which were used in conjunction with various abrasive substances to work stone and other hard metals."
pg 73-74Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines Dennis Swift
So if we take thewe take this testimony at face value then we end up with an airtight case that men dwelt with dinosaurs, whether it be the prediction of coelacanth or the pre-Columbian cemetery, the history of findings, or the famously advanced ancient Incan culture. The case appears solidly in favor of dinosaurs living with man.
However this could indeed be the case of a finding that is too good to be true with the farmer of the original narrative who was desperately impoverished admitting to forging some. While there are many supporters of this find there are also many skeptics even among the young earth creationist community. However there are many groups that do so simply out of axiomatic bias. Notice how this group which is admittedly bias processes this evidence...
"Some are so plainly bizarre that they can be discounted, as in the example showing a human riding on the shoulders of a pteranodon, a species of pterosaur that (should the bizarre act ever have occurred) could never have supported such a weight."
The bizarre nature gives an axiomatic disqualification. In otherwords there is no objectivity. Fr instance the assumption that a pterodon could not hold a human is based on a failed understanding of the past, because our air pressure does not support their ability to fly at all!
"The new research claims that the ancient reptiles, which could grow to the size of small aeroplanes, were too heavy to fly - even with their massive wings. The problem, according to a leading scientist, is that they could not flap fast enough to create the thrust to keep their enormous bulk airborne.The 'dinosaur' popularly known as a pterodactyl is actually called a reptile called a pterosaur, which is Greek for flying lizard!" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3352699/Pterodactyls-were-too-heavy-to-fly-scientist-claims.html Geologist as well have noted that the atmosphere was different in the past, since the large reptiles needed more heat since they are cold-blooded.
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2012/11/lets-put-canopy-back-up-defense-of.html
yet even the article from "badarchaeology" admits to certain facts behind the Ica Stones..
Paleontology) Human foot prints and Dinosaur foot prints
Some evidence just doesnt look debunked.
One good skill to acquire is learning to read between the lines.
Here is the new York Times article claiming to have debunked the Glen Rose Texas Dinosaur footprints.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown-to-be-dinosaurian.html
Now let me show you where the holes in their argument form.
"Scientists called the discovery an ''exciting development'' in their running dispute with those fundamentalists, known as scientific creationists, who argue that the biblical account of creation should be taught in schools on an equal basis with the Darwinian theory of evolution. "
Why would this development be "exciting"?
Because the "Scientists" have an agenda to debunk Creationism! "those fundamentalists" At the time when Carl Baugh found the foot prints he was not a fundamentalist by the way.
"Confronted with these findings, a leader of the scientific creationists conceded that the tracks could no longer be ''regarded as unquestionably human.'' " Doesn't seem to be precise. " it is John Morris of ICR btw.
The problem is that as a Creationist I am not led by John Morris but By God!!!
This is political trickery you need logic and evidence to argue a point not endorsements.
"An accumulation of fossil and geologic evidence has led scientists to conclude that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that dinosaurs inhabited the world for some 160 million years, becoming extinct 65 million years ago. Fossil discoveries in Africa indicate that early human ancestors appeared about three million years ago. "
You understand this is full on evolutionary propaganda.
"Then along came Mr. Kuban, a computer programmer from Brunswick, Ohio, who majored in biology in college and has become an experienced student of dinosaur tracks. " So that means he is not a PHD in paleontology, neither does he have a bachelors in Paleontology, hmmm...
"Two summers ago, pursuing the investigation, Mr. Kuban said he found evidence that ''practically jumped out at you.'' Ronnie J. Hastings, a high school science teacher from Waxahachie, Tex., made a similar discovery at about the same time. "
HOLD ON! KEN HAM AND KENT HOVIND WERE HIGHSCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS THAT DOESN'T COUNT! ;)
"Almost every one of the alleged human tracks, they found, was accompanied by distinct colorations in the rock that, upon detailed analysis, revealed the pattern of dinosaurian digits. "
What do Dinosaur digits look like? Does every species of dinosaur have identical digits? certainly with the expertise paleontologists show they must know which species of Dinosaur this is right? They have looked at a foot print supposedly 70 million years old and the chemicals from the dinosaur were preserved in a "Running Stream" 70 million years! I bet there must have been some Dino BO on those tracks!!
"For some time, paleontologists had withheld an endorsement of Mr. Kuban's interpretation because it went against the traditional view of how bipedal dinosaurs walked. It was assumed, based on the preponderance of footprint evidence, that they almost always walked in the digitigrade fashion - on their toes"
So they have to reinterpret the entire way they understand Dino tracks!! Even though the accepted dino tracks do not do this.
"Neither Mr. Kuban nor the paleontologists could determine what species of dinosaurs were responsible for the disputed Paluxy tracks. They could not be sure whether the more flat-footed tracks represent a regular type of locomotion for some dinosaurs or merely occasional or aberrant behavior."
OHHH NOOOOO!!!!! You mean that human looking footprints are not given any other identity????
There are a lot of dinosaurs and they could not identify which species of dinosaur because all dino tracks look alike??
Let's not use Occam's razor and assume because it looks like human tracks that they indeed are.
Especially considering the fact that with over 11 tracks and no view of dino digits and the tracks of foot prints over the other dino prints gives us a perfect outline keeping the shape of a human foot.
"Some other alleged human footprints, Mr. Kuban said, appeared to be the result of erosional distortions, natural irregularities in the rock or perhaps the impressions left by dinosaurs dragging their tails or pressing their snouts to the ground while feeding. Creationists Accept Report"
erosion makes holes bigger and not smaller.
Oh wow! This guy is a christian!!!
"In an article in the current issue of Creation/Evolution, a publication of the American Humanist Association, Mr. Kuban wrote, ''I have concluded that no genuine human tracks have been found in the Paluxy riverbed.''"
Humanist??? Isn't that an official name for the religion of atheism?? He is an atheist christian! ;)
I know that christians debunking Christians must publish in places that will embolden unbelievers ;)
Here is a well documented case dealing with this issue by Don Patton.
https://youtu.be/dWe3cteDuBc
Baby dino in mammal fossil"In China, scientists have identified the fossilized remains of a tiny dinosaur in the stomach of a mammal. Scientists say the animal's last meal probably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago."
https://www.livescience.com/3794-dinosaur-fossil-mammal-stomach.html
Microscopi) Dinosaur softcell tissue found
Abstract
"Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
Now what is the limit that soft-tissue could survive?
"One of the key questions researchers are still grappling with is just how long DNA can survive. Biochemist Todd Lindahl of Britains Imperial Cancer Research fund at South Mimms has studied the main mechanisms that degrade DNA-hydrolysis and the loss of purines, one of the chemical building blocks of the molecule. He has found that by the standards of most of the biological molecules, DNA can remarkably be long lived. Results of ancient DNA up to 50,000 to 100,000 years old are credible,' he says, adding that beyond this time it is much harder to envision how the molecule could be protected from decay, as even encased in materials such as amber, oxidative damage would be expected Lindahl believes researchers claiming to have older DNA should explain how it was preserved."
Nigel Williams The Trials and Tribulations of cracking the pre-historic code," Science, Vol. 269, August 18 1995, p. 923-924.
https://youtu.be/DAV0wx4lhdA
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
But looking at physical traits rather than genetic ones, orangutans are a better match, Grehan and Schwartz say.
Tell-tale features shared by both orangutans and humans include thickly
enameled molar teeth with flat surfaces, greater asymmetries between the
left and right side of the brain, an increased cartilage-to-bone ratio
in the forearm, and similarly shaped shoulder blades.
"A hole in the roof of the mouth that was supposedly unique to humans is also present in orangs," Schwartz said.
"Humans and orangs have the widest-separated mammary glands, and they grow the longest hair," he added. "Humans and orangs actually have a hairline, in contrast to virtually all primates, where the hair comes down to the top of the eyes."
The team also highlighted orangutan-type traits in the teeth and jaw remains of ancient
Based on their analysis, the authors suggest "that humans and orangutans share a common ancestor that excludes [living] African apes."
But orangutans are native to Southeast Asia, which creates a problem: How did humans evolve in Africa if we are so closely related to the geographically distant orangutan? (Explore a human migration time line.)
The mainstream view is that humans evolved from the same group as African great apes: chimps, bonobos, and gorillas.
Instead, the authors speculate that a widely distributed orangutan-like ancestor of humans lived in Africa, Europe, and Asia some 13 million years ago.
Subsequent changes in climate and environment likely caused many populations to become extinct, leaving Asian and African species to evolve in isolation.
"Wacky Idea"
"There are actually very few [physical] features linking chimps and humans," noted the Natural History Museum's Andrews. "The case for that is based almost entirely on molecular evidence."
And those molecular studies are flawed, Schwartz and Grehan say, because of the high likelihood that the data includes broadly shared DNA traits.
"When you're doing a really rigorous analysis of relationships, you don't just stop at the potential demonstration of similarity," Schwartz said. "You have to distinguish between features that are widely shared [among many species] and those that are more uniquely shared."
In addition, Schwartz notes, the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.
Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar, he said.
But other studies that focus on non-coding regions also consistently support a human-chimp link, counters Carel van Schaik of the Anthropological Institute and Museum at the University of Zurich, Switzerland.
"A study that reaches a very different conclusion [from the genetic evidence] must explain why these molecular studies are wrong," van Schaik, who also serves as a consultant to the conservation group Borneo Orangutan Survival UK, said in an email.
"Of course, orangutans are very human-like in many respects, but so are chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas … ."
Anthropologist Nick Newton-Fisher, of the University of Kent in the U.K., described the human evolutionary path implied by the new study as a "wacky idea."
"Given the weight of evidence from the genetics," he said, he would be reluctant to accept the new findings."
The only relevant issue of evolution is whether or not man is unique and not necessarily a beast. yet they have failed to decisively or factual trace man past Adam
The skeleton in the basement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The skeleton of the ‘Guadeloupe Woman’ is a well-authenticated discovery which has been kept the British Museum for over half a century. In 1812, on the coast of the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, missing the feet and head. It belonged to a woman about 5 foot 2 inches tall.
What makes it of great significance is the
fact that this skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old
limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile [1.609 km] in
length! Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million
years old—which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to
have first appeared on earth!
Since such a date for a regular person does not fit evolutionary
theory, you will not find “Guadeloupe Woman” mentioned in the Hominid
textbooks. To do so would be to disprove evolutionary dating of rock
formations."http://www.utaot.com/2014/02/04/the-mystery-of-the-guadeloupe-woman/
The case of Miocene Man, Howgate and Lewis, New Scientist 29 March 1984 pp. 44-45
This piece evidence was found in the early 1800's in the british museum and in the 60's they hid it in the basement.
Because it completely clashed with everything they were teaching about evolution. When you remember the scopes trial nobody was aware of this fossil. Yet they pushed frauds upon people like Nebraska man and Piltdown man. The existence of evolution was an idea.
But we need to realize is that idea has been long Extinct!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment