|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Creationist Perspective on Mitochondrial Eve |
    |
|
TOP SCIENTISTS SPREADING MIS-INFORMATION
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html
Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.
This was stated in a report by Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence. Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
"Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago."
This is a practical impossibility -->>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA
"In animals, the rapid rate of change makes mtDNA most useful for comparisons of individuals within species and for comparisons of species that are closely or moderately-closely related, among which the number of sequence differences can be easily counted. As the species become more distantly related, the number of sequence differences becomes very large; changes begin to accumulate on changes until an accurate count becomes impossible."
Thus, there is no way scientists could have gone back 200,000 years into our genetic code and traced the mtDNA sequences accurately, as the same changed rapidly and over this large of time span, it would be virtually impossible to trace accurately the human mtDNA changes and connect them both to to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.
More dis-information and impossible accounts being posed to us by so-called modern scientists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even if we trace the ancestry through females, 200,000 years would be too long a span of genetic modificatoins to produce reasonable results. We simply do not have a large enough quantity of samples of human DNA along the string of genetic modifications during the ages pre Eve. We know mtDNA undergoes practically no modification within a short span of time, but we cannot actually be certain what is happening back to 200,000 years ago. This due mainly to modern dating method errors.
According to science, "the migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve and that dispersal."
"The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Khoi and San people in South Africa, who appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago."
Notice the words "appear to have diverged".
The flaws in dating methods mainly contribute to errors. We have something like at least 19 or more dating methods all giving extremely huge diverging dates of fossils. (See topic on one for ED for evidence of this). How then can we be certain those specimens are from 90,000 to 150,000 years ago, when the dating methods are flawed? What if they date no longer then back to 8,000 years in reality or less? What if others are from 2000 years ago, and all the dates are thus mixed up? Then all the fossil samples become mixed up as well, and then the mtDNA study becomes flawed and subject to an incredible amount of error. We would then be in essence be breaking the entire chain of the study into samples taken from wrongful dates, thus producing a hodge podge of results with no connection between the links. Further, how could species of humans going back 200,000 years be so closely related to our present?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
"Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago, although studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.[8][9"
We don't have consistent human samples among all these periods in time up to the present, only studies of biology based on dating methods subject to enormous error margins. And this first fossil dated as 130,000 years may in fact be no less then 8,000 to 10,000 years of age, due to the huge margin of error of modern dating methods. Next, even if they are closely related to modern day man, we may still be looking at actual modern day man samples, due to the enormous errors in modern day dating methods. So we are really not tracing anything back to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago, but rather a mitocondrial Eve from our own very day modern man, just a little older then us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: The Errors of Modern Science |
|
|
The entire concept of a Mitochondrial Eve, as well, is based on theory and hypothesis, not on fact -->>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
The Molecular clock technique, also a hypothesis -->>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock
"While the MCH cannot be blindly assumed to be true, individual molecular clocks can be tested for accuracy and utilized in many cases."
"In general terms, they need to be calibrated against material evidence such as fossils before firm conclusions can be based on them".
and -->>
"Effects of small population size are also likely to confound molecular clock analyses".
And even the supposedly improved technique, that of "relaxed molecular clocks" ...."are still based on statistical inference and not on direct evidence and that therefore, strictly speaking even a relaxed molecular clock can only support but never prove a scientific hypothesis."
and an attempt to correct this is thus done -->>
"This problem is approached by using the fossil record, which quite often is good and well-documented enough to provide hard evidence, to calibrate the molecular clock accordingly."
Thus the attempt to correct it goes back to the faulty dating systems used to date the fossils, becoming a vicious circle effect of error.
In effect, we have one method being a hypothesis, based on another hypothesis, which in turn is based on conflicting dating methods. The whole things begins to unravel into a great margin of error possibility, being used with precision by unscrupulous scientists, eager to prove a point and gain notoriety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
This doesn't tell me anything. Where is the real study? What did it really say?
Where is any proof about anything?
Of course this entire concept of a Mitochondrial Eve is based on theory and hypothesis, not on fact.
This is what science is. Someone does research and writes a paper to be reviewed by others in the field. I don't know how mitochondrial DNA works one way or the other. How am I supposed to determine who is correct here?
I don't understand the point of all this. I have never heard anyone say that every scientist is 100% correct. So what?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you tend to get confused by the simplistic reporting of science.
Anytime you read anything by anyone you can assume that this is just their opinion and not necessarily fact (without them specifically stating this).
In other words everything I say is my opinion whether I say so or not.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would say in most cases that reporters spread the misinformation and not the scientist.
Reporters look for interesting papers which have been published in some particular field of study and then reduce that paper to a story fit for public consumption. Thereby removing all of the science from the original.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1165
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
the oldest known human remains are from a skeleton found in Ethiopia and dating back 160,000 years. The problem is that the number of such samples (beyond fifty or sixty thousand years) are very few and not complete.
therefore a theory is going to be based on incomplete evidence - and, as Chris says, is just a theory.
the use of such information by journalists to create a sensation does not prove anything one way or the other.
the notion of an "Eve" figure seems to ignore the gradual evolution of the species Homo Sapiens. How can I be so sure ? Eve will have had a mother.
you see, the Eve figure - by being the first example of the new species - must herself have been a variant of a former species. Which came first - the chicken or the egg ? The egg.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: Further considerations on mtDNA and dating methods |
|
|
See, that is the problem with evolution. At what point can we use and establish as the DNA turning point, where one species becomes another? Are we of the monkey species? Clearly not. So at some point, we need to trace a dividing line, under this theory, if one such exists. This is the problem with evolution. No such dividing line exists, nor can we prove the cross-over from one species to another. All we have is scant evidence, from varied periods of time, coupled with fallacious dating methods that may be placing equivocally the remains into periods of time which in actually are not as far remote as some would have us believe, particularly given the conflicting results of some 16-20 different dating methods, which all produce completely different dates from 2 million to 200 million years of age, for the same fossil.
See, the problem is that we cannot go back and test the reliability of any dating method, since nobody was there at the time to establish if those fossils are really from that age, or are as old as it appears, by some dating methods. Thus, the entire premises of modern science, when it comes to evolution and dating of archeologycal artifacts, remains, if flawed, imprecise and only theory.
Yet on TV, on the news, in schools, practically everywhere, it is taught as FACT that the earth is millions of years old and that we descended from monkeys - that there was in fact a cross-over of species. But the problem is establishing the missing link, the turning point, the ultimate proof also that those species being analyzed are not in fact variations of monkey which have adapted themselves to varied environmental conditions, or variations of humans, different races, for that matter.
Further, common genetic pool characteristics does not establish the definitive link, as the same pattern of genetic design could have been used to create completely independent species. When you design a car, a plane a house, you work from what is known, to produce another variety, another model, an improved version of your previous model. So who knows whether monkeys could have been a pre-stage to the creation of an ultimate masterpiece?
And from a scientific point of view, the rate of mutations of the mtDNA, and maternal tracing is all based on theoretical models that themselves cannot be extruded back millions of years with any precision. We have then varied fossils of humanoids, but actually placing those in time is imprecise and subject to failure.
It is the same as taking vertical fossils of earth, with successive deposits, and tracing the evolutionary chain this way, or taking horizontal samples of earth, laid out in a horizontal plain and trying to establish dating from this. The vertical method would be more accurate. But sad to see that some of the early classification and dating of fossils was done in an erroneous way, by extracting samples in a horizontal, rather then a vertical direction - completely preposterous
Further, as Richard stated, at what point can we say we have the chicken, or the egg? And if the egg came first, then what is the egg? If we keep extending the supposed cross-over point, then we have in essence a completely different species and therefore no mtDNA link. Further, the samples are scant and insufficient to establish a linear progressive direction in mtDNA succession. Particularly due also to the lack of precision and conflicting results of the modern dating methods. Fossils which are being dated as 200,000 years of age may in reality have no more then 8,000 to 10,000 years of age, if we are lucky. And even if they are in fact older, we cannot be sure actually and exactly how old they are. All we have is scientific speculation being taught as empirical fact, then blasted across the news and across every billboard in GIANT letters, and preached in our schools and educational institutions with a vengeance and furry, so as to once and forever dispel and bury the myth of the "fanatics" who claim anything other then evolution and modern science could have some clues or answers for us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1165
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
since I am not an American, I am constantly baffled about the anti-Darwin hysteria.
what are you scared of ? why should a 19th. Century theory cause so much alarm ?
isn't the use of scientific analysis of more immediate concern in telling us why WTC7 collapsed ? it wasn't hit by any aircraft - even the insurance companies say that it wasn't brought down by terrorism. Was it a planned demolition job, or did a giant monkey come along and stomp on it ?
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Haut wrote: | since I am not an American, I am constantly baffled about the anti-Darwin hysteria.
what are you scared of ? why should a 19th. Century theory cause so much alarm ?
isn't the use of scientific analysis of more immediate concern in telling us why WTC7 collapsed ? it wasn't hit by any aircraft - even the insurance companies say that it wasn't brought down by terrorism. Was it a planned demolition job, or did a giant monkey come along and stomp on it ? |
Nobody is saying we are scared of evolution. I don't know about England, but in the US it is preached as fact everywhere. So thus the need to reveal it's true fallacies.
About the WTC7 - there was a need to destroy the adjacent structure out of a security measure, as far as I remember - since the structure had been damaged by the collapse of the other towers. But maybe the government didn't want to come out and admit this, or it may be accused of liability on this building, since it had induced and allowed the terrorists to attack the two main buildings. In fact, I would go as far as to postulate that the government got carried away, there intent was to damage the two WTC buildings, but nobody in those dumb upper camps thought the main buildings would actually collapse. So they had to knock down WTC7 and out of embarassment say it was caused by fires. They were in effect caught with their tail between their legs.
http://www.wtc7.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is not preached everywhere. Generally shows like Nova which do a pretty good job explaining modern theory state that these are our best guesses based on evidence we have. The only problem with competing theories is that they have not made a compelling case for being correct.
I believe evolution is the most logical explanation of our world because it makes since not because I study the science in depth. I can't speak to the specific accuracy of any particular dating method.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of God but it does challenge the literal interpretation of the bible. I think most people (even most theologians) do not believe in a literal translation though.
I don't want to even go to that WTC discussion though cause that's just plain crazy.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: Evolution - Just "Makes Sense" ? |
|
|
THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION - does evolution occur?
In-built in the very design of living things, imparted by the Creator, is the ability of organisms to mutate, adapt, change to environmental conditions, as a means to perfect themselves and develop survival traits. Thus, evolution in this sense is not contested. Evolution is called a fact, as much as a theory, by modern scientists -->>
"Evolution is a Fact"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
But the truth is that in science, not all theory is fact or is widely accepted as fact. In science, we have thousands of theories, many of which have never been widely accepted as fact. So we have in essence a vary strange agreement, when it comes to classifying all evolution as fact. Only particular observed forms of evolution can be considered fact, those that have been experimentally observed. And none of these prove that everything evolved from a simple few proteins, amino-acids or nucleic acids, RNA sequences and the like. All this delves into areas of theory that cannot be observationally proved, put to the test, verified, and thus result in an accurate model for the construction of our universe. And even to obtain a protein from amino-acids, we need a gene (or genetic programming), to define the sequences of amino acids in a protein to allow the same to form the basis of any organism, the cell -->>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
| Quote: | | "Proteins are large organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain and joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues. The sequence of amino acids in a protein is defined by a gene and encoded in the genetic code." |
And even the combinations of amino-acids to form the proteins is so complex that it would have been designed into the protein, rather then evolved by chance.
More on this further down.....
PROGRAMMED EVOLUTION
Now, to observe organism change, development, adaptations to the environment is truly a form of evolution that is not being contested. Even if species can evolve over time and produce new species need not be contested. There is scientific evidence for this in fact. What is contested, however, is that the entire complexity of the universe and living creatures could have simply come into spontaneous existance from simple chemical complexes, and auto-arrange themselves into mechanisms so complex that not even a billion years of chemical interactions would explain their existence and degree of complexity.
So we have programed evolution built into the nature of organisms, as a mechanism to allow them to perfect themselves. But this still required an initial programming by a designer.
The Error of Evolution
The error of evolution is to exclude the creative element and attribute the existence of the universe simply to chance chemical reactions that somehow miraculously on their own produced life and evolved all on it's own to the infinite complexities of our universe. Simple not plausible and believable.
A Simple Definition of Evolution
Here is a definition of evolution -->>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
| Quote: | | "In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population." |
Main terms appearing in evolution -->>
Thus we have in accepted forms of evolution change in traits, mutations, new traits, transfer of genes, new combinations of genes, variations in traits between organisms and new species arising out of concentrations of varieties into geographic isolated areas of smaller populations, that are then allowed to diverge into their own heritable differences.
The main mechanisms of evolution -->>
| Quote: | | "There are two major mechanisms driving evolution. The first is natural selection, a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3] In an independent process, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce. Though the changes produced in any one generation by drift and selection are small, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms." |
On the appearance of new species -->>
| Quote: | | "One definition of a species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring. When a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species.[4] The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[1]" |
Regarding the common ancestor, more on this down below....
and how science cannot explain the origin of life -->>
"Origin of life
For more details on this topic, see Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis.
| Quote: | | "The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[146] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[147] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[148][149] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[150] and the assembly of simple cells.[151]" |
Common ancestor too complex to have spontaneously evolved
And even if a common ancestors exists, it is so complex that it is more like thousand times more complex then anything we humans can create -->>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor
Suggesting even a common ancestor needed some "design assistance" to come into being, rather then out of "spontaneous chemical reactions".
Even the most simplest of chemical structures, the supposed origin of life as in the nucleic acids -->>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid
and these being the basis of the supposed RNA world -->>
The RNA World Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
which then forms the basis for the DNA world, is an extremely complex world of chemicals and programmed combinations of codes, way to extremely complex to be simply explained by any known form of evolution that can be proven in any way.
and then we have the --->>
Iron-Sulfur World Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
It looks simple on paper, until we get to step 4 -->>
| Quote: | 1. Produce acetic acid through metallic ion catalysis.
2. Add carbon to the acetic acid molecule to produce three-carbon pyruvic acid.
3. Add ammonia to form amino acids.
4. Produce peptides and then proteins. |
As we have seen, the sequence of amino acids in a protein is defined by a gene and encoded in the genetic code. So to even produce proteins, we first need a design, a genetic code, otherwise we have only random combinations that do not lead into any kind of directionality and complex organization and structuring, as seen in the protein structures of peptide bonds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
and even the modified version of this theory, the modified iron-sulfur-hypothesis of 2002 does a poor job of explaining, when we get to step 4 of the process -->>
| Quote: |
1. the micro-caverns provide a means of concentrating newly synthesised molecules, thereby increasing the chance of forming oligomers;
2. the steep temperature gradients inside a black smoker allow for establishing "optimum zones" of partial reactions in different regions of the black smoker (e.g. monomer synthesis in the hotter, oligomerisation in the colder parts);
3. the flow of hydrothermal water through the structure provides a constant source of building blocks and energy (freshly precipitated metal sulfides);
4. the model allows for a succession of different steps of cellular evolution (prebiotic chemistry, monomer and oligomer synthesis, peptide and protein synthesis, RNA world, ribonucleoprotein assembly and DNA world) in a single structure, facilitating exchange between all developmental stages;
5. synthesis of lipids as a means of "closing" the cells against the environment is not necessary, until basically all cellular functions are developed. |
It claims cellular evolution as a possibility. But this is where there is no proof of evolution - the initial construction of proteins and RNA -DNA - Cells takes place only with a genetic code, the product of a design, not random chance. There is no proof that random chance could assemble the proteins or that a genetic code could evolve simply by random mutations, adaptations of chemicals to the environment. Theses structures are far to complex to simply auto-evolve even in high temperature zones of underwater volcanic areas, as suggested. (The black smokers). Simply preposterous and unbelievable.
All these chain reactions so described are based on theory that is not fact, and thus the type of evolution referred to or applied to here begins to demonstrate it's fallacies.
In conclusion, the article states:
"Despite this, it is not clear whether the proposed mechanism of abiogenetic life could actually work, or was how life did start."
So then after all the complexities of modern science, we are back to ground zero when trying to interpret and apply the term "evolution" to imply spontaneous creation of genetic code.
Thus evolution still does not explain the origin of life. It explains only how life changes, adapts itself to the environment and how new species can originate under new optimal biological arrangements better adapted or segregated into clusters of life forms.
Note: Notice the word "suggests" , this theory "suggests", this data "suggests" etc, etc, again keeps appearing in many theories and hypothesis of science to attempt to explain connections or the possibility of a hypothesis being a reasonable model to explain reality. As we have seen, such models and hypothesis do not even get close to explaining the reality of the origin of life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Biggest Error of Evolution
The idea that the entire universe went all on it's own from nothing, to low level chemical compounds, to slightly higher levels of organization, to then evolving into the extremely highly complex forms, and into the complexity of our modern universe, is an erroneous definition of evolution -->>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
This extrapolates the idea of evolution - when we apply it to complexity appearing spontaneously on it's own. This contradicts the laws of enthropy and thermodynamics.
Evolution Does Not Mean the Universe can Auto Design Itself
Simply to suggest that evolution causes all on it's own things to increase in complexity and that incredibly complex biological machines simply evolve spontaneously from nothing to the extremely complex universe we live in today is preposterous. There is an intricate design in the universe, clearly seen and reflected in every minute detail, that indisputably speaks to our inner conscious of something much greater then we can fathom to understand. Our weak minds believe we can explain it by some model of auto evolution creating everything from nothing.
Evolution in the Modern Definition is Suggesting Auto-Design of the Universe.
This is where evolution has lost it's way - it has extrapolated itself to suggest the impossible - that life could spontaneously arise on it's own and slowly become more complex, auto-organize itself and produce mechanisms of such advanced complexity and intricate design that we cannot even reproduce them with modern day computers and any known technology - the universe is far more complex then anything we can dream of as human beings. It is far to complex to simply have evolved on it's own, without the intervention and design of an outside source and intelligence, in summary.
This Definition of Evolution is Suggesting the Impossible
This "Timeline of Evolution" suggests the impossible - that life arose from nothing and all on it's own spontaneously gave birth to a universe so complex that defies our understanding. That somehow we can correctly model and explain our universe in our fanciest theories and hypothesis models. It is simply ludicrous to believe.
Those who believe this is a reasonable model to explain the existence of the universe are simply not making one bit of sense - it defies all logic and reason.
And even if life arrived on the earth carried by a meteor, where did the life on that meteor arise from?
And for those who do not see Evolution preached everywhere, just chek all public schools in the US, all the universities, everything broadcast on TV, (Discovery Channel, National Geographic etc etc, books, science magazines and on and on....) on the News, everywhere! It is rampant, blasted as fact undeniably, and one cannot simply state this is not the case. To deny this is simply an attempt to confuse people's minds further, out of willful refusal to consider what is being presented. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The error of evolution is to exclude the creative element and attribute the existence of the universe simply to chance chemical reactions that somehow miraculously on their own produced life and evolved all on it's own to the infinite complexities of our universe. Simple not plausible and believable.
Science tends to settle on the simplest answer. You say life is to complex to have begun by the nature of the universe and so attribute it's creation to God which you then conveniently do not account for. What would be more complex than God and who is to say that God is not the universe?
I could have the theory that life was seeded here by an intelligent race from a distant planet and that certainly could be true. That still would not determine the origin of life overall, just here on earth.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
