Does anyone have legitimate, physical evidence to support evolution???

Question

Transition Fossils don't count- there's no proof the came between two species
Carbon Dating doesn't work-The guess the amount of carbon there was at that time.
Rock layering Dating doesn't count-They've found petrified trees going through several layers.

What this first and tell me what you think

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2822588848596167687&q=Kent+hovind

Answer 1

Hey Bro..... only in their dreams...( but they spout it as fact )



I think they need a life....maybe they could 'evolve' one.

Answer 2

Evidence for evolution is found across the spectrum regardless of whether you "count" it or not, it is supported by other fields of science like geology, astronomy, and physics. Controversy over evolution is almost exclusive to the general population, and then only to theists who take Scripture at it's most literal interpretation. Time magazine once polled 485,000 earth and life scientists and only 700 believed that Creationism was scientifically sound and the method for speciation. Note that these are actual scientists, not lay-persons like you or I, and certainly not like Dr. Hovind, who doesn't have a doctorate in science, but in education from Patriot University who is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge.



I've watched the video and it appears to me that the man plays fast and loose with his brand of "science"



He lumps several fields of science in with evolution.There isn't a biologist out there that will tell you the big bang theory has anything to do with evolution. For that matter the origin of life, abiogenesis, doesn't fall under evolution. He makes often use of the Strawman Argument, especially his example of Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki (and the above examples). I could go on but the point I'm trying to make is that Dr. Hovind is not the man to go to if your looking for actual science, even Creation Science, leading Creationism sites like answersingenesis.org list many of his examples as arguments not to use when making a case for Creationism.



If you truely want to understand the evidence for Evolution it takes work. If going to sites like talkorigins.org, whose articles are footnoted by actual scientific, peer-reviewed, papers isn't enough for you, take a few college level courses in biology, actually understand what you don't now believe before deciding.

Answer 3

So, there are many things not counting. I guess you wouldn't believe the FACT of evolution even if we came with all scientific proofs avalaible (including comparate anatomy), and that's supposing you have a deep knowledge on chemistry, geology, zoology, botany and physiology (and I don't think it's the case). So why waste time?

Besides, how can you decide which evidence count and which not? You should let scientific community know, they all have been losing so much time and effort studying things not counting.

Answer 4

Find out who owns any cell phone number!



This cell phone number lookup will give you owner information about a phone number for free. Search for a cell phone number today to begin your free trace!



Discover the best site Reverse Phone Lookup - http://phonedetectives.co



Results include name, address, carrier, and other details when available. Your search is Private and Discreet.



Reverse Phone Lookup area gives you additional access to millions of public records, including:



+ Find out the source of a harassing ("prank") caller

+ Research a number that appeared on your phone bill

+ Locate an old friend from high school or college

+ Research "missed calls" on your caller ID that you don't recognize

+ Verify an address

+ And more...



PhoneDetectives - http://phonedetectives.co



Conduct an instant reverse phone lookup. 100% Confidentail and Instant Results!

Answer 5

Mutations is thought to be one of the contributing factors to evolution.

In the bacterium E coli, there is lac gene for using lactose as a source of carbon (food).



Now, consider an E coli strain having nonfunctional lac gene.

Frequency od changing this non-functional gene to functional one by random mutation is less than 1 in 10 to power 15.



When same strain was forced to stay in a medium which contains lactose as the only source of carbon, the frequency of this change from lac - to lac + improved to 1 in 10 to power 8.



This is published in a research paper in scientific journal. This research proves that changes in the living beings take place in response to environmental stimuli; which is the basis of evolution.

Answer 6

How can you ask a legitimate question and then preclude two of the most obvious proofs? It like you asked someone to prove that gravity exists, but the fact that things fall when you drop them doesn't count because you can't see the gravity.



The whole point of sciences is that you don't get to preclude proofs just because they disagree with what you claim.

Answer 7

certainly.

have you ever looked at a biology textbook printed in an advanced society?



firstly fossil record is used to prove practically,

do you believe in plate tectonics?

then you believe in the fossil records



carbon dating is for things that are only thousands of years old

you use argon dating for anything older.



also, finding the same spices in more than one level of rock is not any way to disprove evolution,

look at the cockroach!

it's been around for hundreds of millions of years, and hasn't changed all that much!



finding the same thing in the same place for a few thousand years... big whoop. look at china. humans have been hanging around the same rivers for ten thousand years!



also, there is no way to prove something in science.

one can only disprove things



what do you suggest instead of evolution?

Answer 8

Once again, I'm gonna have to call you on this. The first point is that many of those quoted are not qualified to comment on evolution. Mathematicians, Physicists, philosophers, etc are simply not skilled in genetics to talk about such a concept as Evolution. Take those who are. Michael Denton for example made his comments over 20 years ago and since then the gaps that he refers to are still be used as fact by Creationists. Dr Colin Patterson is blatantly misquoted and you will find letter from him attacking the misuse of his quotes by creationists on the internet. Lord Solly Zuckerman is more a zooologist and not an evolutionist as you state (although I suspect you did a cut and paste job from a creationist website). His research dates back to the 1930's and he wrote books in the 60's and 70's. NOW THIS IS GETTING EMBARRASSING FOR YOU because this is typical Creationist strategy - either misquotation or quoting research that is decades out of date. And you talk about reasonable. But I will continue a bit further because believe or not am getting a kick out of EMBARRASSING YOU and your lack of SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE or even you inability to CHECK "FACTS" before you use them. Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose is not so eminent and indeed the only refernce you find to him is on, you guessed it, creationist websites. "Paleontologist and Evolutionist Dr. Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History: The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation." Look at what is said here. Maybe the words are enough to fool creationists but this is simply saying that there is no competitor to evolution. It certainly is not denying evolution. Thomas Barnes, Ph.D., physicist is not reputable and even appears on websites alongside our famous Dr Humphrey's, laughing stock of the physics community who made basic mathematical errors when formulating his starlight and time theory for a young universe in line with the big bang, who has been criticised by the whole physics community who titter at his name and yet Creationists drag these people out as evidence of defection. These people WERE CREATIONISTS FROM THE START. THEY NEVER WANTED TO BELIEVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE BIBLE. Mathematician P. Saunders and biologist M. Ho, again it questionable as to whether a mathematician can comment on such a topic. Even a biologist does not mean geneticist or expert in evolution. THIS ONE IS GREAT Pierre-Paul Grassé born 1895 and died 1985. He is hardly a CURRENT DEFECTOR FROM evolution. He NEVER BELIEVED in evolution. He was never an evolutionist as the website from which you did your copy paste states - yes I found the website. The website is LYING - IS THAT CHRISTIAN? TELLING BLATANT LIES - IS THAT CHRISTIAN? IT GETS BETTER Arthur Koestler was born in 1905 in Budapest. He was interested in the paranormal, mysticism and judaeism. He was not scientifically trained and was one who believed in Jung's philosophy. I wonder if the Christian website would continue to use his views if they knew he COMMITTED SUICIDE with his 3rd WIFE? Lyall Watson, the man who tries to explain the supernatural with biology. AGAIN, NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST. NOW I HAVE EMBARRASSED YOU ENOUGH. YOu should know that I will call you on these lies and misinterpretations. It strikes me as strange that Christians JUSTIFY LYING in order to serve a purpose of recruiting numbers or keeping their numbers. It makes no sense. I hope your God is watching. What is even more hilarious is that YOU BELIEVE this and call yourself reasonable.



For the best answers, search on this site https://smarturl.im/aDACS

Answer 9

DNA......you can see evolving traits in genes. Evolution being real doesn't make God any less real. Would you believe in evolution if it didn't make you question God.

Answer 10

Yes !



Have you seen Sylverster Stallone? It is the proof man came from the monkeys

Answer 11

Direct answer to the question: No.

What I think: Why do we care in the first place?

Answer 12

you have proof to prove anything else? it's all theory. get over it.

Answer 13

The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time.



The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:



1. the fossil record of change in earlier species

2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

3. the geographic distribution of related species

4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations



1. Fossil record:

Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.



Exmaple: over thousand of records from all over the world is here!

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html



The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens



2. Chemical and Anatomical Similarities:



Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple single celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.



All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements. This is not a mere coincidence.



All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells.



These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in specific sequences.



All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.



In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis , or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.



Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them. This is the case with the vertebrates , which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.



All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species



for example:

The amino acid sequences of proteins are often used to establish the phylogenetic relationships of species. Sequence studies with functional genes have centered on genes of proteins (or RNAs) that are ubiquitous (i.e. all organisms have them). This is done to insure that the comparisons are independent of the overall species phenotype.



For example, suppose we are comparing the protein sequence of a chimpanzee and that of a human. Both of these animals have many similar anatomical characters and functions, so we might expect their proteins to be similar too, regardless of whether they are genealogically related or not. However, we can compare the sequences of very basic genes that are used by all living organisms, such as the cytochrome c gene, which have no influence over specific chimpanzee or human characteristics.



Cytochrome c is an essential and ubiquitous protein found in all organisms, including eukaryotes and bacteria (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 24). The mitochondria of cells contain cytochrome c, where it transports electrons in the fundamental metabolic process of oxidative phosphorylation. The oxygen we breathe is used to generate energy in this process (Voet and Voet 1995, pp. 577-582).



Using a ubiquitous gene such as cytochrome c, there is no reason to assume that two different organisms should have the same protein sequence or even similar protein sequences, unless the two organisms are genealogically related. This is due in part to the functional redundancy of protein sequences and structures. Here, "functional redundancy" indicates that many different protein sequences form the same general structure and perform the same general biological role. Cytochrome c is an extremely functionally redundant protein, because many dissimilar sequences all form cytochrome c electron transport proteins. Functional redundancy need not be exact in terms of performance; some functional cytochrome c sequences may be slightly better at electron transport than others.



Decades of biochemical evidence have shown that many amino acid mutations, especially of surface residues, have only small effects on protein function and on protein structure (Branden and Tooze 1999, Ch. 3; Harris et al. 1956; Lesk 2001, Chs. 5 and 6, pp. 165-228; Li 1997, p. 2; Matthews 1996). A striking example is that of the c-type cytochromes from various bacteria, which have virtually no sequence similarity. Nevertheless, they all fold into the same three-dimensional structure, and they all perform the same biological role (Moore and Pettigrew 1990, pp. 161-223; Ptitsyn 1998).



Even within species, most amino acid mutations are functionally silent. For example, there are at least 250 different amino acid mutations known in human hemoglobin, carried by more than 3% of the world's population, that have no clinical manifestation in either heterozygotic or homozygotic individuals (Bunn and Forget 1986; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 235). The phenomenon of protein functional redundancy is very general, and is observed in all known proteins and genes.



With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986). Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988). Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally similar amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.



In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee should be random with respect to one another. However, from the theory of common descent and our standard phylogenetic tree we know that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. We therefore predict, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c - simply due to inheritance.



Confirmation:

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.



3. Geographic Distribution of Related Species:



Another clue to patterns of past evolution is found in the natural geographic distribution of related species. It is clear that major isolated land areas and island groups often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities. For instance, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials but none of the more advanced terrestrial placental mammals such as dogs, cats, bears, horses. Land mammals were entirely absent from the even more isolated islands that make up Hawaii and New Zealand. Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world. The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's mostly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.





4. Genetic Changes Over Generations:



The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs. As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred.



This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below--the bacteria population has evolved.



for example: Evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria

This same phenomenon of bacteria evolution speeded up by human actions occurs in our own bodies at times when an antibiotic drug is unable to completely eliminate a bacterial infection. That is the reason that medical doctors are sometimes hesitant to recommend an antibiotic for their patients and insist that the full dosage be used even if the symptoms of illness go away. They do not want to allow any potentially antibiotic resistant bacteria to survive.

Answer 14

Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.

Yet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This

"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.





(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)



Although this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.

Darwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:

1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.

2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all.

3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.



The power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.

In this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:





The First Insurmountable Step:

(The Origin of Life)



The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?

Since the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.



"LIFE COMES FROM LIFE"



In his book, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.

Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.

Even when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."30

For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.





The French biologist Louis Pasteur

The Russian biologist Alexander Oparin



The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth. Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.



(Inconclusive Efforts in the Twentieth Century)



The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:

Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.31

Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.

Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions.32

After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.33

All the evolutionists' efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?34

One of the evolutionists' gravest deceptions is the way they imagine that life could have emerged spontaneously on what they refer to as the primitive earth, represented in the picture above. They tried to prove these claims with such studies as the Miller experiment. Yet they again suffered defeat in the face of the scientific facts; The results obtained in the 1970s proved that the atmosphere on what they describe as the primitive earth was totally unsuited to life.



All information about living beings is stored in the DNA molecule. This incredibly efficient information storage method alone is a clear evidence that life did not come into being by chance, but has been purposely designed, or, better to say, marvellously created.



(THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF LIFE)



The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms deemed to be the simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.

The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of a cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is considered to be impossible in practical terms.

The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible databank. If the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.

A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.35

No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated from natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life was "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.





(IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION)



The second important point that negates Darwin's theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as "evolutionary mechanisms" were understood to have, in reality, no evolutionary power.

Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of "natural selection." The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection…

Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.

Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:

Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.36





(Lamarck's Impact)



So, how could these "favorable variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.





(The French biologist Lamarck)



Lamarck thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example to this line of reasoning, he suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of grass. With the discovery of the laws of genetics, it was seen that acquired traits could not actually be inherited at all. As a result, Lamarckism had been invalidated by science by the beginning of the twentieth century.



Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time.37

However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.



The direct effect of random mutations is harmful. Above is a mutated calf which was born with two heads.





(NEO-DARWINISM AND MUTATIONS)



In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930's. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.

Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.38

Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such any imaginary process called "evolution" could have taken place.





(THE FOSSIL RECORD: NO SIGN OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS)



The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.

According to this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."

If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed.... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39



The larger picture belongs to a 100-million-year-old Nautilus fossil. On the left is a Nautilus living in our day. When we compare the fossil with today's Nautilus (on the right is the cross section of the creature's shell), we see that they both have the same identical characteristics.





(Darwin's Hopes Shattered)



However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the evolutionists' expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

One famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.40

This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin's assumptions. Also, this is very strong evidence that all living things are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.41

Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the earth. That means that "the origin of species," contrary to Darwin's supposition, is not evolution, but creation.





(THE TALE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION)



The subject most often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:





1. Australopithecus

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call man's so-called first ape-like ancestors Australopithecus, which means "South African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.42

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo," that is "man." According to their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century's most important evolutionists, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."43

By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is one another's ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time.44

Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region.45

This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution, although he is an evolutionist himself:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.46

Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is "upheld" with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.

Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.

Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science" ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"—that is, depending on concrete data—fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception"—concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense—and finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible – and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.47

The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.



Imaginary representations of 'primitive' human beings are frequently employed in stories carried by pro-evolution newspapers and magazines. The only source for these stories, based on these imaginary representations, are the imaginations of their authors. Yet evolution has suffered such a defeat in the face of the scientific facts that fewer reports concerning evolution now appear in scientific magazines.





(TECHNOLOGY IN THE EYE AND THE EAR)



Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.

Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the eye's retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the "center of vision." These electric signals are perceived in this center as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.

The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the "center of vision" is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.

The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are holding it, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.

For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.

Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?

Compared to cameras and sound recording machines, the eye and ear are much more complex, much more successful and possess far superior designs to these products of high technology.

If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of hearing in the brain.

The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all of the noises in a crowded place. However, were the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at that moment, complete silence would be found to be prevailing there.

As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all of this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality hi-fi systems produced by the largest company in the music industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body's technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does a hi-fi; rather, it perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the creation of man.

So far, no man-made visual or recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.





(To Whom Does the Consciousness That Sees and Hears within the Brain Belong?)



Who watches an alluring world in the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose?

The stimulations coming from a person's eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain. However, you will never come across the most important fact: Who perceives these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, and neurons comprising the brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is comprised of matter, cannot answer these questions.

For this consciousness is the spirit created by God, which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds. Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.

Everyone who reads this explicit and scientific fact should ponder on Almighty God, and fear and seek refuge in Him, for He squeezes the entire universe in a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy, and luminous form.



Motion

Tought

Touch

Talking

Vision

Tasting

Hearing

Smelling

We live our entire life within our brain. The people that we see, the flowers we smell, the music we listen to, the fruits we taste, the wetness we feel on our hand… All of these form in our brains. In reality, neither colors, nor sounds, nor images exist in our brain. The only things that exist in the brain are electric signals. This means that we live in a world formed by the electric signals in our brain. This is not an opinion or a hypothesis, but the scientific explanation of how we perceive the world.





(A Materialist Faith)



The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is a incompatible with scientific findings. The theory's claim regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the required intermediate forms have never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea. This is how many ideas, such as the Earth-centered universe model, have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.

However, the theory of evolution is kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against it as an "attack on science." Why?

The reason is that this theory is an indispensable dogmatic belief for some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward to explain the workings of nature.

Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is "first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist":

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.48

These are explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to materialism. This dogma maintains that there is no being save matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary both to reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to defend it just so as "not to allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is God, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.







They said:"Glory be to You!

We have no knowledge except what You have taught us.

You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."

(Surat al-Baqarah: 32)





Reference:

http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=462&Format=pdf



http://harunyahya.com



Other Islamic references:

http://www.islam-guide.com/islam-guide.pdf

http://www.muslimconverts.com



I want to show you real video about THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE. (The link below)

http://harunyahya.com/m_video_creation_universe.php

The miracle of man's creation (video) :

http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1249



Related site: http://www.creationofuniverse.com/



=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*

Answer 15

There isn't enough evidence to support evolution. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory (hypothesis). There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time.

With all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.



* It is true that during the 20th century, many scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton recently observed:



"An important factor in bringing about the universal dominance and acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every eminent professional scientist appointed to posts in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50 years, in the English-speaking world, has been a convinced Darwinist. These men, as well as occupying powerful and important academic teaching positions, were also prolific and important writers whose influence has been widespread in forming the consensus."



These names include such men as Gavin de Beer, Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, C.H. Waddington, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Simpson.

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:





"A tidal wave of new books threaten to shatter that confidence, titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'."



As Science Digest reported:



"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities. Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."



One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started."



Partial list of Creationist scientists

(past and present)



600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).



150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.



(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)



Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)



Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)



Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]



Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]



Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)



Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)



Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]



Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)



Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)



David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)



Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]



Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]



Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)



Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)



Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]



Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)



Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)



Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]



Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)



Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]



Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]



John Grebe (chemist) [more info]



Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)



William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)



George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]



D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]



James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)



Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)



John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]



Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]



Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]



Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)



Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)



Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]



Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)



James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)



Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)



Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)



Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)



Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]



Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)



Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)



William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)



John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)



Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)



Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)



James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)



Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)



George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)



Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]



William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)



Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]



Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)



Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)



A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]



A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]



John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)



A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.





See our partial list of Creation-scientists with earned doctorates in science



Partial list of Creation-science organizations and addresses



Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, California 92021, U.S.A. - www.icr.org



Creation Research Society, P.O. Box 969, Ashland, Ohio 44805-0969, U.S.A. E-mail: [e-mail]



Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92350, U.S.A.



Access Research Network, P.O. Box 38069, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80937-8069, U.S.A.



Answers in Genesis, Australia (formerly Creation Science Foundation), P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge DC, Queensland 4110, AUSTRALIA.



Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6330, Florence, Kentucky 41022-9937, U.S.A. - www.AnswersInGenesis.org



Creation Science Association, P.O. Box 821, Station A, Scarborough, Ontario M1K 5C8, CANADA.



Creation Magazine UK, Ltd., P.O. Box 770, Highworth, Wiltshire SN6 7TU, UNITED KINGDOM.



Korea Association for Creation Research, Olympian Building, Room 811, 196-7 Jamilbou-dorg, Songpua-Ku, Seoul, SOUTH KOREA.



Bible and Science of Japan, c/o Dr. Masami Usami, 1-4-41 Kamimito, Mito-Shi, Ibaraki-Ken 310, JAPAN.



Christian Center for Science and Apologetics, ul. Gogolia 33-8, Simferopol, 95011, Crimea, UKRAINE - http://west.crimea.com/~creation/





REFERENCES



Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 12.



David C.C. Watson, "Book Reviews," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Terre Haute, Indiana: March 1989), p. 200 (emphasis added).]



Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.



Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith: Chemist / Lecturer / Creationist / Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941) / Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich / D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964) / F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) / Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc. / Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company / Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford / Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages / Dr. Wilder-Smith was also a NATO three-star general. He was featured in the motion picture series ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be.



Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications and Standard Media, 1983).



Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 277.



For Further Reading



Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism (Santee, California: Master Books, 1984) (surveys the origin and history of the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and various other Creationist organizations in the U.S. and overseas), and Men of Science - Men of God (Santee, California: Master Books, 1982), 128 pp. (includes biographies of 65 prominent "Bible-believing" scientists of the past).



Ann Lamont, 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible" (Acacia Ridge, Australia: Answers in Genesis), pp. 9-12.



Paul A. Bartz, "Religious Bigots Expel Scientific Giants from Classroom!: Kepler, Pasteur and Maxwell Replaced with Darwin, Huxley," Bible-Science Newsletter, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Minneapolis: Bible-Science Association, March 1989), pp. 3, 14.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html



* Evolution isn't mathematically possible. The complexity of life points to Intelligent Design as revealed by such complex structures as:



* Cells and DNA

In Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.



According to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."



Even the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.



Inside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.



The most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.



"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University



DNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?



DNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?



Since DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information is transmitted. The naturalistic scientist has only two possible ways to explain the origin of life-either chance or natural law. But information theory provides a powerful tool for discounting both of these explanations. Both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content."



The sequence of basis in DNA can not be explained by natural law because there are no chemical laws that make any sequence more likely than another. At the same time these sequences are so complicated that they can not be explained by chance.



"Based on probability factors any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10. Such a number, if written out, would read:



480,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.



"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)."—I. L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong, 1984, p. 205.



The study of DNA provides powerful new evidence that life is the product of intelligent design.



Today, holding on to the hope that some natural process will be found to explain DNA is supremely irrational. The elusive process that naturalists hope to find would have to be completely unprecedented, different in kind from any we currently know.



Although humans share about 97% of their DNA structure with some higher non-human animals, those last 3% are so vital that all of human civilization, religion, art, science, philosophy and, most importantly, their moral nature depends upon it.



It is the 3% that distinguishes the theistic view of man's origin from the non-theistic view, as well as from the various societal and cultural consequences distinguishing each belief. As John Quincy Adams warned long ago, without a belief in theistic origins [in that three percent difference] man will have no conscience. He will have no other law than that of the tiger and the shark."



ON ALL FRONTS, scientists are being forced to face up to the evidence for an intelligent cause. Ever since big bang theory was proposed, cosmologists have had to wrestle with the implications that the universe had an absolute beginning-and therefore a transcendent creator. The discovery of the information content in DNA is forcing biologists to recognize an intelligent cause for the origin of life. So, too, the fact of irreducible complexity is raising the question of design in living things.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm



* The Fossil Record



Darwin believed that the fossil record would reveal thousands or millions of life forms which would demonstrate a gradual change from one kind to another (called transitional forms).



But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same.



If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.



Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue".



There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form When apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record.



John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.



The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.



So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one's belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific.



"We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - Dr. David M. Raup, Curator of Geology, Museum of Natural History, Chicago



The fossil record is often so sparse that there are numerous cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years without leaving a single fossil.



The lack of the hypothesized intermediates between one species and another is a significant criticism of Darwinism. If land animals truly came from sea creatures, there should be ample evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms have never been found.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm



* The Cambrian Explosion

Nearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the "Cambrian Explosion.



Scientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today.



Many of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.



Two places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China.



In Stephen J. Gould's popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include "a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world's oceans.



Further, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods*** that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But "one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs." Today there are about 38 phyla in existence, but the Canadian, Chinese and other Cambrian sites reveal over fifty phyla.



There has been a decrease in diversity (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the reverse of what evolutionary theory predicts.



Besides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to "the last filament of a trilobite's gill," or the last meal in a worm's gut.



The Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable.



Researchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects.



The conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.



Until recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian period, especially with the recent discovery of two fossil fish in China.



The two new fossils from Chengjiang are the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found. The insects and other land invertebrates are also a very important group, and these practically all seem to be living fossils.



These complex animals were present at the beginning of multicellular life and did not appear later as is predicted by evolutionary theory.



Evolution does not explain the abrupt appearance of complex forms of life early in the fossil record or these fossils' unequaled diversity. The implication of the Cambrian explosion of diverse, fully functional, and multicellular life is that evolutionary theory is falsified.



Life did not start out simple and evolve into more complex and diverse animals; it was complex and diverse right at the beginning. This contradiction between the fossil data and the predictions of evolutionary theory falsifies the theory.



"The facts of paleontology seem to support creation rather than evolution. All the major groups of invertebrates appear suddenly in the first fossiliferous strata. (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations, indicating that they were all created at almost the same time." - David Enock Associate Professor of Biology. BS Yeshiva College, MS Hunter College



Even George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard high priest of evolution had to admit, “In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm



* Scientific evidence that dinosaurs and humans really did coexist together are the numerous intermingled dinosaur and human tracks that have been found in the riverbed of the Paluxy River in Texas for more than fifty years. In addition, 3,000 dinosaur footprints with human footprints right alongside them were recently discovered in Turkmenistan.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/dinosaurs.htm



* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:



* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm



* Living "Fossils"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm



* The Cambrian Explosion

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm



* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm



* "Missing Links"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm



* Anthropic Principle

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm



* Irreducible complexity

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm



* Biological Evidence

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm



* The Moon

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm



* Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm



* Scientific arguments against evolution:

Science itself refutes Darwinism

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml



* The Origins of Darwinism

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/origins.shtml



* Darwinism is Racist

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml



* Evidence for Intelligent Design

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/intelligent-design.shtml



* Creation Science

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/creationscience.shtml



* Evidence For A Young Earth and Universe

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/youngearth.shtml



* Age of man:

The Race of Man Is Younger Than Previously Thought

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/ageofman.shtml



* Darwinism Is Strongly Rooted But Is Being Challenged

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/summary.shtml



* References

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/references.shtml



* Do real scientists believe in Creation?

Partial list of Creation Scientists

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html



* http://www.drdino.com/