Challenge to YECs? Part 8

Before I start answering questions in this section, I want to point out what was written at the end of this section where the person who wrote this was indirectly admitting that the age dating process is not accurate. And was making an excuse as to why and justifying why it’s used anyway. The reason this was done is because this person knows very well what is going to be pointed out by most creationists. But this creationist (Me) also approaches from a different angle not only pointing out what has already been established by us that the evolutionist cannot address but like to instead ignore. But that simple logic proves that one cannot trust the current age dating methods. Here is what was said at the bottom of this section of the questions.

Like all scientific methods of analysis, radiometric dating techniques are not perfect and are subject to interferences that can sometimes produce false results. Analysis of inappropriate and/or improperly prepared samples gives erroneous values. Nonetheless, how does the YEC model account for the high level of consistency observed from using a variety of methods of analysis that place the age of the Earth far in excess of the biblical limit of about 10,000 years.

If you have been reading this since part one you will remember an analogy I did where I proved that evolutionists can be right and wrong at the same time. I will do it again because what is said above is an illustration of a person justifying they can be right and wrong at the same time and it does not matter.

The analogy: Let’s say an evolutionist is using certain evidence today to claim I am lying about my belief being true. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really the liar? Yet the evolutionist will justify his being wrong by saying: That’s how science works. Never having to admit to being wrong but always being able to justify that even though he was wrong it does not matter so actually he was right regardless and on both counts. So in other words the logic is that the old evidence made him right and the new evidence made him right as well. So the evolutionist will always be right even when wrong because their logic allows it. This is how science has rewritten what truth and lies are because in science they are both on the same level. But yet they will use the standard of right and wrong when judging or comparing themselves to everyone else. Basically science through evolution has a double standard. Where they can say and claim evolution is true but never really have to prove it to the same criteria they will require of everyone else. They cannot even define truth scientifically so why should they be required to tell it?

If a teacher would take this same logic on grading tests, where the truth can change so one can be right and wrong at the same time. The whole class would ace the test regardless of what their answer was or if they answered at all. While the class next door applies the criteria of what truth really is so therefore people will be right and wrong so some will pass and some will fail. In real reality do we live in a world where truth does not matter and there is no right and wrong questions or answers? Or do we live in a world where the real reality is what we live, what we see, not what we want to be true? So with really no criteria of ever having to meet real truth on any level, how could evolution or any of its support mechanism ever look wrong, or be wrong? There is a reason only an evolutionist can point out something that is a fraud in evolution. It’s because on all matters of evolution a evolutionist is close minded to anyone whom does not agree. This is also why only evolutionists can be scientists because first you have to believe there can be no absolutes so that therefore truth can be whatever you want it to be.

The reason that science requires different rules from real reality is so their ideas can look like another reality or truth if you buy into the supposed fact that there is another reality that is made up. Why else go to all the trouble to sell such logic and philosophy if the evidence itself is supposed to be empirical? It’s done this way because the real truth of the matter is that less than 5% of evolution can actually meet the real criteria of being empirical. Being empirical means the evidence has to be testable in a lab. The results and conclusions repeatable under real world conditions. The supposed fossil record that is often implied to be empirical evidence cannot meet being empirical. Neither can more than 95% of the rest of evolution. Why is it this way? Because 98-99% of evolution has to be interpreted. Which means words are the only real thing that says evolution happened. Why do you think it takes soooo many words to explain it? And when someone disagrees after soooo many words are used they are referred to as being ignorant and uneducated.

How can one tell that something is a made up reality? It’s when in its defense one must go outside the realm of actually proving it to actually making you feel that if you don’t believe you are lower than pond scum. And that is what we observe in every aspect of anyone whom dares to not believe, or dares to challenge evolution. How often does this occur? 100% of the time anyone dares to do either. It also has several names that has nothing to do with science. Bullying, which is what evolutionist like to do with the new in Christ to convert them (conversion is not science). Peer pressure which is to appeal to one’s ego, pride, or self-confidence. And then there is just plain hatefulness. This is where person is hated solely for what they believe that does not conform to evolution and nothing else. Which is another form of peer pressure that basically states that to belong and be accepted you must believe evolution. What is also used to convince more than using evidence is that the idea that “majority view” of what is considered the smartest minds in the world makes it so regardless of what anyone else may or could prove. They exalt themselves as the elite in everything they do while looking down upon everyone else except their peers (Stereotyping to belittle) . When something makes a person feel superior to everyone else, this is the example of the attitude that evolution breeds from a superiority complex. This is also why they will never accept anything a creationist says because to do so would be lowering themselves to pond scum level (in their opinion). Which is bigotry at it’s finest Now to the questions:

8. OBSERVATIONS FROM AGE DATING STUDIES

  • Essentially all radioactive isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a billion years are no longer in existence. For the most part, the only radioactive isotopes present are those with half-lives close to a billion years or longer. The only radioactive isotopes present with shorter half-lives are those that are being constantly replenished by natural means. This distribution of isotopes is in good agreement with the other evidence that shows Earth is about 4.56 billion years old. How does the YEC model account for this current isotopic distribution?
  • Response: 1) If something is no longer in existence how does one tell it was ever there? 2) So one point the isotopes are accurate because they have half-lives  close to a billions years, yet on the other hand they can also be replenished by natural means? Does anyone besides me see the problem here? 3) How does one tell by the isotopes that the earth is 4.56 billion years old when: a) they can be replenished. b) They don’t last 4,56 billion years. c) How can one tell how long one isotope has been replenished?

YECs can accept the age dating as accurate because we know the Creator had to create with age in order to make what was created work under the laws that existed before and after sin. You see time without sin is eternal or infinite. Which means creation was done under different laws of physics because the first 6 days where without sin and therefore infinite. This is the main reason when we use the laws that exist after sin they cannot explain it nor will it make any sense. But when one realizes what has to be different in the laws of physics to make an infinite time-line work, then the pieces and evidence for creation start to fit. So what has to be different to make an infinite time-line work?1) You first have to understand that time exists in the infinite time-line which is proven by this verse: rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour…. Time cannot be measured where time does not exist.
2) Time and aging are two separate processes. In other words time continues while age remains a constant (the age of all matter remains constant). In this way all that is created has to be created with age already added. This is because as long as the infinite laws exist, nothing get’s older. We are so used to time and age moving as one that it is hard to comprehend time moving forward yet nothing ages.
3) This is why all matter, both living and dead, were created with age already added. Ageless matter passing from the infinite time-line would not work under finite laws that we currently observe. Adam and Eve plus all the plants and animals were created with age. This is shown in the Bible because all were told to go forth and multiply right after being created. Offspring cannot do that.
4) Why create the whole universe with age already added? Because man had a choice to sin or remain sinless. God had to make a creation that would work under the laws that would exist in either time-line (infinite or finite). If not, man’s sin would have destroyed what was created which would have made for an imperfect creation.
5) Would not that make for a deceptive Creator? No. This is because in the infinite time-line, time does not have to pass for age to increase. So leaving the dating markers on how old God created everything was relaying just how creation was done. The attempt here to make the Creator sound deceptive is only justification to continue disbelieving because this method fits and explains everything so their only come back is to say this. These types of answers are only used when science cannot debunk what is claimed. Because if there were any science to use they would have used it.

  • There are in excess of forty different radiometric dating methods, and a number of other methods such as those involving thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, and tree-ring, varve, and ice-core measurements. These methods are in agreement the great majority of the time covering time spans encompassing millions of years.
  • Response: The only methods used and accepted are those who support evolution. 1)There are no trees that have tree rings that go beyond 10,000 years because trees don;t live that long. 2) Ice annual rings are not made by seasonal changes only like a tree because ice is not a biological life form. So because of this the rings are formed through temperature changes that go from above freezing to below freezing. And because this can happen from night to day and not years, a supposed annual ring can be made in a 24 hour period. Besides that was there ever any test done to confirm one ice core ring takes approximately one year to make? No. it was accepted as fact only because claiming it takes a year makes it fit in the evolution time-line. Because if there was a test done to confirm this the test results and how it was done would have been released. But there is zero confirmation on this. And if not any evolutionist can send me the test results and how it was done and I will post it right here. But because this was “never” done I don’t have to worry about this. But this does bring up an important question. How was it established that rings found in ice are annual? Being that there is not test to confirm this means it was based in opinion and not fact. And because it’s still accepted as fact, makes one wonder just how science can let this continue when it’s actually fraudulent? Of course like I said before they can be right and wrong at the same time so using fraudulent evidence makes not difference. It’s how science works.
  • Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly lend support to the old Earth model. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth scenario. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating are normally published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals in a year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
  • Response: You see here is the perfect example of majority view makes new truths and reality. Hundreds of laboratories agree so it’s true. Peer review by other evolutionists agree the evolution is true. Problem is with all of this is that age dating is flawed from the beginning. According to their origins of everything, all matter came from the same source 15 billion years ago. So should not there be a trace back to that age if all matter is related to the source? of course. But does it? Nope. In fact not one planet, not one star, or anything else date as old as 15 billion. This is because age dating markers are not left until the said matter cools down enough to leave them. So our planet that came from a source 15 billion years ago will only date 4.5 billion years old means there is 10 billion years to account for. Get the picture?

So to cover up the possibility that God created everything with age, which the evidence of age dating supports, they ignore this really big difference in age dating and treat it as if the problem does not exist. So what accounts for 10 billion years of missing age? So what this means is that the matter that made the earth is actually 15 billion years old because it’s source (the dot) is supposed to be that old even though it only dates 4.5 billion years.

  • When radiometric dating techniques are applied to meteorites, they consistently give values close to 4.6 billion years.
  • Response: But the actual age dating back to the supposed origins of matter is 15 billion, so the age dating is wrong again/
  • Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Radioisotopes commonly used in dating techniques have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and corrosive chemical treatment without causing any significant changes in rates of radioactive decay. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
  • Response: Still wrong since the source of all matter is supposed to be 15 billion years old.
  • Using the current, observed rate of motion of the Pacific Plate and the distances between the modern Hawaiian Islands, it is possible to calculate the relative age differences between the Islands.  The ages determined by this method are in good agreement with those obtained by K-Ar radiometric dating.
  • Response: That is if one could prove that the plates moved at a constant rate throughout all time. That cannot be done.
  • Carbon-14 dates of about 38,000 years ago have been correlated with several other methods (ice layers, tree rings, uranium-thorium isotope ratios, etc.) to within about 5% agreement.
  • Response: So there are now trees that date 38,000 years old through tree rings? I’d like to see that. And again, ice is not a biological life form to seasonal changes from summer to winter don’t make the ring, changes in temperature does. And all matter comes from a 15 billion year old source so all matter is actually 15 billion years old.

Challenge to YECs? Part 7

7. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE STUDY OF BIOGEOGRAPHY

  • According to the evolution model, geographic isolation should play a significant role in the distribution of species worldwide. In keeping with this model, species that first evolved in a certain geographic setting and were restricted in their movement to other areas should be found naturally only in the areas in which they first appeared – even though there are no compelling reasons that they could not have survived elsewhere. The facts show that this is indeed the case. For example, overall there are some 13 families and about 180 unique species of marsupials found naturally only in Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea. The only monotremes (egg laying mammals) are found in this geographical area and nowhere else. How does the YEC model explain, in scientific terms, the migration of these animals to the purported Ark prior to the Flood? (There is no evidence in the fossil record that any of these animals ever existed endemically in the Middle East.) Furthermore, how does the YEC model explain the subsequent migration (after the purported Flood) of these animals back to their original geographic locations? Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining how animals such as the flightless Kiwi and the blind marsupial mole (which lives only in sand) made the round trip and why faster moving placental animals are virtually absent from Australia.
  • Response: The expansion and contraction of the earth’s crust because of the water from under the earth’s crust coming up and then going back means that the motion of the tectonic plates had not completely stopped yet. How does one stop a moving continent? And because there were only certain number of animals that came off the Ark, if they happen to migrate to an area of land that was still in motion because the tectonic plates were still settling. Then they could one day find themselves separated from the rest of the animals that were on the original land mass the Ark had landed on. So being so few in number at that time this separation made the continents often species specific. Because how does the animal swim back, or those left behind swim to them?

Example: Let’s say the polar bear does not swim. Let’s say there are 5 species divided up by male and female of those who are compatible to reproduce. They live separate because they can tell who’s different and are not interesting in mingling. While on the ice one day the ice decides to separate. One species ends up living in one area of the ice while another drifts to a whole totally new area. But they are now totally separate and the two areas are now species specific.Also remember the continents were together at one time (super continent). Which means all land mass were together as well. So when the Ark landed these animals migrate and end up in different areas that later separate after the flood. So does the Bible support Pangaea theory? Yep. In the creation it is stated that the earth was covered totally with water.Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.The whole earth being covered with water during creation is confirmed when the water has to go underground before dry land can appear.Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
If water has to be removed somewhat so that land could “appear” means that the whole earth was covered during creation. Because you cannot make something appear if it’s already there. And because this was the first expansion of the earth’s crust, this is what left the evidence of the Pangaea super continent. The flood which was the “first contraction” of the tectonic plates pushed up the mountains that we now observe. This is because when the water came up from under the earth’s crust there was nothing there supporting the plates anymore so they come back together forming one solid earth while pushing up mountains. But the cracks from the first expansion were still there. And when the water seep back into what was now very hot, steamed formed making pressure which pushed the tectonics plates back apart allowing water to come back in to be underground again. Once the water pressure equalized between above ground and below ground the extreme pressure made the boiling point of the water go high enough that the boiling and steam stopped and so did the expansion of the tectonic plates. But while the water was flowing into the underground areas the pressures were not high enough so the steam continued to push the plates apart. What made the pressures less during this time was that the expansion acted like a syringe. The plunger being pulled back to suck the liquid inward has to create somewhat of a vacuum to do this. Just like the expanding plates opening faster than the water could flow into it would do the same thing. This is because water has a viscosity to it which means it also has a “flow rate”. This can be demonstrated by pouring water through a funnel. According to how big the smallest end is determines the flow rate because of the water viscosity (how thick it is as a liquid).
But because this brought up more molten rock to the surface to cover the area that has now expanded. There was not enough solid-cooled down molten rock in the earth’s crust yet to stop the tectonic plates from moving like they were floating. What this allowed for was continental drift. So when the animals from the flood got onto certain land masses while migrating that were still drifting, they became separated from the original group making that particular continent only have the species that happened to migrate to that land mass before it drifted away. Once that molten rock hardened enough, and in the amount needed. The continents drift slowed up to what we observe today and the continents basically drifted to their current positions. So the hardening molten rock acted as a type of braking system slowing up the continental drift over the years. What would also help in the slowing of the tectonic plates movements is the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits and the pull of the sun.This video, which has nothing to do with creation, pretty much sums up how the earth expands and contracts when water exists and then is removed.

Neal Adams, who made this video animation, did not realize his idea fits perfectly with the creation model. Because to make the earth smaller water has to be removed from under the crust and between the land masses. And as you watch the earth shrink in the animation notice how the water disappears. In the creation and flood model this is what the land masses would look like under the water. And this is something that most evolutionists forget is the earth will shrink when the water from underneath the crust is removed. But then you might say: There is not enough water under the crust to make the earth shrink that much. And if you assume that you would be wrong.Research done on the upper mantle of the earth has found that a mineral called “wadsleyite” holds about 3% of water by weight. This may not seem like much until you do the math on how much wadsleyite there is. The amount of water works out to be 30 oceans worth. More than enough to flood well beyond the highest mountain, and make the earth expand and contract as much as shown in the animation.
Reference: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=294

  • The now extinct flightless dodo bird existed only on an island in the Indian Ocean. The slow-moving three-toed sloth, armadillos, new world monkeys, jaguars, rattlesnakes, and indigenous cacti exist only in the Americas. The speed-challenged and clumsy giant spiny anteater exists only in New Guinea. The Gila monster exists only in the American Southwest, although it should be equally at home in the deserts of the Middle East (as should be cacti and rattlesnakes). The flightless cormorant lives only in the Galapagos and the penguins live in Antarctica. Fossas and lemurs are endemic to Madagascar, but no monkeys or cats naturally inhabit this area. Lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs occur naturally only in South America, Africa, and Australia. Alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias occur naturally only in Eastern North America and East Asia (these two continents were once in close proximity on the Laurasian contintent). As above, describe how the YEC model provides a scientific explanation for the migration of these types of species to and from their specific areas of habitation before and after the Flood. Explain also why species are not distributed evenly amongst the habitats for which they are equally well adapted. In particular, explain in terms of the YEC model why there are no elephants on any Pacific islands, no rattlesnakes or indigenous cacti in Australia or the Sahara desert, and no amphibians on remote islands.
  • Response: The last response answered this question. But I will take this a step further to prove my point. Because of the flood there should be a dispersion of all seeds all around the planet. This would not be like the last response where areas became species specific due to continent separation. The plant dispersion and survival would be based more on its ability to survive in the area its seeds ended up in. So we would expect to see plants growing according to its ability to survive in that climate so the mixture of species would not be as much continent specific as animal life. And that is what we see.

Also the flood would explain such huge movement in the tectonic plates that would allow plants to be found in areas today that they could have never survived in. Such as palm trees found buried in ice. Plants and animals found buried near the poles that only lived in warm climate and could have never survived the cold climate. Only movement of the plates due to a flood could displace things like that.

  • The earth consists of distinctive geographic regions, each characterized by the presence of various organisms which have evolved to fill those niches. If one studies a species across its geographic range, it is frequently observed that it varies from place to place. Sometimes the extreme representatives of this variable sequence even meet in close proximity. For example, the herring gulls and the black-backed gulls coexist in Britain. Although these species do not interbreed, they are connected in a series of interbreeding populations that extend around the North Pole. The populations immediately west of Britain look similar to herring gulls. Moving in a clock-wise direction around the North Pole, the populations gradually start looking more and more like black-backed gulls and less and less like herring gulls. Their black-backed traits become predominant near Siberia. The evolution of these two distinct species can be traced by simply observing sequential morphological changes in populations throughout their range. A similar relationship is observed with the Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast.
  • Response: Birds are actually a bad example for the specific reason that these birds can migrate thousands of miles over water and land. Their migration places them where they are, unlike land animals who would be restricted from moving across thousands of mile of water. So it does not mean one species of bird bread off another because they happen to live next to each other. Their migration drive is also fed by the need to breed. For if their migration habits were different and they did not live together then this conclusion could not be made. Or the interpretation would be different just to make the conclusion conform to how evolution works. Conformism is not science.

Challenge to YECs? Part 3

Reference: http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/challenge.htm#intro3. OBSERVATIONS FROM MOLECULAR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES

  • The human genome contains a great deal of what is referred to as non-functional DNA, i.e., DNA that is not translated into proteins. Because these elements are not functional in the usual sense, they are passed from generation to generation without experiencing the selective pressures brought about by natural selection. Humans do not have the ability to synthesize vitamin C because the gene involved in vitamin C synthesis is non-functional in humans. In other animals that can produce vitamin C, this same gene functions properly. In other words, humans have the same gene, but it is “broken” so to speak. Chimpanzees and gorillas also posses this same gene which is broken in the same manner as it is in humans. The odds of this pattern of shared mutations occurring by chance are extremely low. But this is exactly what we would expect to see if humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas were all descended from a common ancestor who first experienced this defective gene. Because this ancestor ate a diet that was adequate in vitamin C, the defect had no overt consequences and could be passed on without harm to succeeding generations.
  • Response: This is easy to answer. When the Creator uses the same template (RNA DNA) for all life. Then all life will be related in some form or fashion. It does not mean we evolved that way.

Side note: The human body has several interdependent organs and systems. What that means is that not one of the interdependent organs or systems can exist by itself. Evolutionists would have us believe that this does not matter. But the reality of this means that almost every system and organ had to evolve at precisely the same time for everything to work. Which means only instant creation works because all would be ready to work at the same time. Evolution cannot achieve this  on any level. Evolution does not have perfect timing because that takes math which requires intelligence. So always referring to us and other animals having a common ancestor is at best an assumption.

  • Cytochrome c is a cellular protein involved in a process known as electron transport. Studies have shown that only about a third of the 100 amino acids that make up this protein are essential to its function. Most of the amino acids are “hypervariable” and can be replaced by a large number of functionally equivalent analogs. H.P. Yokey (“Information Theory and Molecular Biology”, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1992) has calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible sequences of amino acids that would provide functionality to cytochrome c. In spite of this incredible number of possible functional sequences, humans and chimpanzees have exactly the same cytochrome c sequence, whereas other organisms have different ones.
  • Response: Again this can be explained in the Creator using the same template (RNA DNA) for all life. The “similar created life” is going to have closely related biological makeup. Also through the evolutionists trying to prove evolution, it is known that less similar life is going to have less related biological makeup. So this works for creation as well. Because the further you get away from similarities in the model you are comparing the others to, the less similar they will be. What I often wonder is why another template for life besides RNA and DNA never evolved? Because as long as the template for life stays always the same it points to a Creator not random chance. Because there is no law or mechanism that would restrict supposed evolution from going away from the original template to evolve a better one. To imply or claim the first template was perfect so another one was not needed is to deny the very foundation of what evolution is all about. Evolution does not get it right the very first time or mutating and evolving would not be needed.
  • Because of the redundancy of the DNA coding system, there are over 10^49 different DNA sequences that could code for the exact same amino acid sequence in cytochrome c. In humans and chimps, the DNA sequence that codes for cytochrome c differs by only a single base unit.
  • Response: Again this is because all life uses the same template (RNA DNA) so any life that closely resembles another with the same template is going to have similarities in biological makeup as well. Which makes us only related through the same template not that we evolved from anything.
  • Transposons are virus-like genetic sequences that randomly insert themselves into host DNA. Except in rare instances, they are passed on from generation to generation by DNA duplication and inheritance. One important transposon is known as the “Alu” element. All mammals contain many of these elements, which constitute about 10% of the human genome. In the human a-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and all of them are also present in the chimp in exactly the same seven locations.
  • Response: Same answer as before.
  • Retroviruses are the molecular remains of past viral infections that occur in host DNA. They are produced when viruses insert their own DNA into the DNA of the host’s germ line cells. These randomly inserted sequences are then passed on by inheritance to the host’s descendants. There are at least seven different know instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans.
  • Response: Same answer as before.
  • If humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor, as evolutionary theory contends, then both species should have the same, or very similar, number of chromosomes. It turns out that humans have 23 chromosomes in their gamete cells and chimpanzees have 24. The evidence strongly indicates that a chromosomal fusion event has occurred in humans in the intervening time since humans and chimpanzees evolved from their common ancestor. G banding is process of analyzing DNA to obtain a detailed “fingerprint” that is characteristic of each chromosome. Chromosome 2 in humans has exactly the G banding pattern that one would expect if two of the chimpanzee chromosomes had fused end-to-end. Every chromosome has two teleomeres (one on each end) and a centromere in the middle. Human chromosome 2 has two extra teleomeres and one extra centromere in precisely the locations that one would expect had they resulted from the fusion of the two chimpanzee chromosomes.
  • Response: There are several things wrong with this conclusion and withholding of information to sell this idea is a deception.

1) The number 2 chromosome in humans is not exactly in the same place on the DNA stand as chimps.
2) It can never be proven that the human chromosome was “ever unfused” in the first place so that during the evolution process it became fused. This whole idea is based on something unprovable being accepted as an absolute truth. Can any evolutionist prove that the number 2 chromosome was ever unfused in humans? If you can with actual evidence and not assumptions I’m all ears.
3) Let’s be honest about what is observable by chromosome changes:
a) Turner’s syndrome is a genetic disorder that affects females. Usually, a female has two X chromosomes; in females with Turner’s syndrome, one of these chromosomes is missing or abnormal. Characteristics of this disorder include short stature and infertility. Other names for Turner’s syndrome include monosomy X, 45X and Ullrich-Turner syndrome.
b) Klinefelter syndrome (or XXY syndrome) is a chromosome disorder that affects males. The affected male has an additional X chromosome, which causes infertility and may cause the development of characteristics such as tall stature and breast development. Treatment may include hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery, speech therapy and counselling.
c) A genetic disorder is caused by an altered set of genes. The four broad groups of genetic disorders are single gene disorders, chromosome abnormalities, mitochondrial disorders and multifactorial disorders. The four main ways of inheriting an altered gene are autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, X-linked dominant and X-linked recessive. Around 6,000 known genetic disorders are caused by inheriting an altered gene.
d) Down Syndrome is the result of an extra copy of chromosome 21. People with Down syndrome are 47, 21+. Down syndrome affects 1:700 children and alters the child’s phenotype either moderately or severely.
e) Patau Syndrome is a serious eye, brain, circulatory defects as well as cleft palate. 1:5000 live births. Children rarely live more than a few months.
f) Edwards Syndrome almost every organ system affected 1:10,000 live births. Children with full Trisomy 18 generally do not live more than a few months. etc…
And this list can go on and on. So with all the evidence showing how negative and even deadly chromosome changes are evolutionists want us to believe that the fusion of number 2 Chromosome was a positive step. Zero “observable evidence” of positive chromosome changes means the idea is more or less an assumption that takes faith to believe. Withholding all the negative evidence of chromosome changes in the hopes no one will go looking to find what I just posted is a deception. Real truth needs no deceptions. Also if an evolutionist can name an “observable positive chromosome change” I will have no problem listing it here. But let’s be honest again. If there was it would have been listed with this question as positive support evidence. But that’s not what we observed. This is because positive observable chromosome changes don’t exist.

Also if you use the evolutionist logic about chromosomes and how we are related in evolution, then what would this chart tell us?

Challenge to YECs? Part 2

This is continued from part 1 https://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1286.

Here is an example of what happens with repelling poles in this video:

How do you get layers with repelling poles to stay together? You don’t. So it’s not polar flips that caused this. Besides, what is going to have more of an effect on the next layers poles? 1) A magnet pole that is 1,000 of miles away? 2) Or one that is butted right up against it that has a magnetic field of it’s own?

  • Astrophysical observations show that the rotation of the earth has been slowing (and the number of days per year has been decreasing) since it first formed.  Calculations based on these observations show that there is a very close agreement between the predicted number of days in a year, the measured number of days based on coral growth characteristics, and the measured age of fossil corals.  The results are consistent with fossil coral ages extending back some 400 million years ago.  How do YECs account for these correlations?
  • Response: This is basically the same question asked earlier about corals it’s just done in a different way. I will answer this the same way I answered the other question. Old earth believers are taking the average growth to calculate this. Which means corals grow at different rates. No one know the rate of coral growth from the past so basically this is an assumption based on something that cannot be proven. Today the conditions for corals is not favorable and many are dying. Do you think corals will grow normally in unfavorable conditions? No they want. So the past was more favorable for growth from which it is easy to conclude that corals grew much faster in the past.
  • Evidence gathered from core samples taken by the Glomar Challenger show that the Mediterranean Sea has been subjected to repeated cycles of drying and re-flooding over a period of millions of years.  Analysis of the core samples reveals a geologic history that involved multiple cycles of deposition of sediments, compression of the sediments into stone, erosion of the stone into canyons (some larger than the modern Grand Canyon), and reburial of these canyons under thousands of feet of new sediments.  Contained within these sediments are multiple layers of evaporites and weathered interfaces that take thousands of years to accumulate and that can only form under exposed conditions.  How does the YEC model explain this evidence?
  • Response: The problem here is this is based on figures that do not include the flood. So why would they support the flood? And some of what was asked here has already been answered in previous responses. It seems that the more I go into these questions the more they are the same just asked in a different fashion.
  • Over 160 impact structures that were formed by the collision of extra-terrestrial objects with the earth have been identified. The vast majority of the impacts that formed these massive structures, which occur at various depths in the geologic column above the so-called Flood basement rock, were not recorded by humans.  Considering that numerous other earth-altering events (earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, etc.) have been regularly recorded throughout human history, it seems odd that so few of these impacts were noted in historical documents if, as YECs contend, humans have been present on earth since shortly after its inception. Some YECs argue that most of these impacts occurred during the chaos of the Flood, and were, therefore, not recorded.  How could these collisions of nuclear bomb proportions have occurred during the Flood without causing massive waves that would have smashed the wooden Ark like a toy?
  • Response: How can one know that these meteors would have nuclear bomb proportions? This is actually an assumption based on making the YEC model not work. But let’s take a closer look. The meteors were only needed to bring down the canopy. And while the meteors entered our atmosphere where the barometric pressures were double because of the canopy, there would have been much more friction to slow down the speed of the meteor before it hit. Also taking into account that the canopy itself slowed these meteors down somewhat upon impact means the meteors back then would not had hit with the same forcible impact as they would today. So nuclear bomb proportions is over kill. Of course when one is looking to discredit something to the emf degree over kill is always in order.
  • Oil contains certain chemicals that derive from the organic materials from which it was formed.  The distribution of these chemicals in oil correlates with the sequence of these organic precursor materials as they appeared in the geologic column.  For example, there is no oleanane in oil deposits older than the last epoch of the Cretaceous because the angiosperms from which this chemical is derived did not exist prior to that time.  A similar time line exists for chemicals in oil such as 24-norcholestane (which is not present until the appearance of the diatoms) and vitrain (which is not present  until the appearance of land plants).  How is this relationship explained in terms of the Flood model?
  • Response: Oil does not take millions of years to form. In fact that claim is based upon assumptions made about the geologic column. There is a process that is done on turkey and chicken by products (stuff that’s usually thrown away), that when the near to same conditions of how crude oil is found in underground is applied twice, the by products break down to form a petroleum product known as bio-diesel (a form of oil that is used as fuel) in about 2 hours. And there are many things that can be broke down to make this. They are currently working on a process to turn tires into bio diesel or gas. They will do the same with common trash and one company is reportedly doing this with raw sewage. So it’s not what existed, its what broke down to make it. There is also what’s called hydrothermal oil. The video below shows oil being made by nature right before your eyes.

<iframe width=”480″ height=”360″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/VdcHIeH0KsM?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

  • The Atacama desert in Chile contains river beds that have not had water running in them for 120,000 years.  Some areas of this desert have been in a hyper-arid condition for at least 20 million years.  How can these facts be accounted for in terms of the YEC model?
  • Response: It would first have to be ascertained how the ages of what history is claimed, was concluded. Asking a vague question with no real information won’t get a good answer. But since it is this way I will ask questions on what I see in the questions. 1) How does one know that the river beds have had no running water 120,000 years? Since there is no information on how I can only conclude that this was assumed. And the claim about 20 million years, same question.

Part 3: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1316

A challenge to YECs? Part 1

Was surfing the internet and ran into this page: https://home.nctv.com/jackjan/challenge.htm#intro

It was put up by Jack DeBaun. Not sure who he is but I found his questions a challenge in themselves. They are different from the average YECH (young earth creation hater). So I’m addressing them because of that because I like challenges. Not that I am trying to meet his challenge. This is because from my experience debating evolutionists-atheists, that you can meet their challenges and it really never makes any difference. This is because they have such a stronghold on science they are not about to give that up. And I could go on and on how it really makes no difference but that would take away from me addressing what’s on that page. So I will start by listing his challenge questions.

Common misconceptions about evolution?

What I will address here is how what is perceived as misconceptions from one side is not really a misconception at all. These supposed misconceptions are taken from:  http://www.evoled.org/lessons/miscon.htm

1) Misconception: “if you believe in evolution, you can’t believe in God”

First, evolution is not something one “believes in.” Biologists do not believe in evolution; rather, they accept it as the best explanation for the diversity and unity of biological organisms.

Second, this is a false dichotomy. Evolutionary theory does not invoke God as an explanation for the adaptation of organisms. What this means is that it is not necessary to invoke God as an explanation, but this is not the same as saying that God does not exist, or that God is impossible. Evolution does not imply this at all. Science is neutral to God; God is neither required nor eliminated by scientific explanations. Nothing about evolution precludes or disproves the existence of God. Science, as a discipline, cannot address the question of the existence of God, since science provides natural explanations for natural phenomena, and God is supernatural.

Furthermore, many evolutionary biologists are devout members of their religious faith, which comprise all of the world’s major religions. Indeed, most religions accept that evolution does not conflict with their religious beliefs (see Voices for Evolution, National Center for Science Education).

Response:
First: If you cannot prove something to an absolute and you still think it happened. Then that means you have “faith and belief” that evolution did it. Accepting it does not cancel out that fact that evolution cannot be proven. Example: I can say I accept God does that mean I no longer believe in God? So the reasoning here is flawed

Second: Anytime intelligence is disallowed or denied then you deny the existence of God. Science only sticks to the natural because atheists run it. To venture into the supernatural means they would have to ponder God. So from it’s very atheistic foundation of those who run it God will “always” be denied.

Furthermore: God does not accept an oxymoron type faith. On one hand you claim to be Christian, on the other hand you deny God’s power to create. The Bible actually speaks of this.
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
What is evolution mainly about? Creature worship. How the “creatures” evolved to make themselves better and evolved a higher intelligence such as man. Bow to the creatures because without them man would not exist. Haeckel and Lyell made it clear what their ideas were to achieve.

2) Misconception: “evolution means that there is no purpose to life”

Again, science cannot address this question (see above). Unfortunately, some scientists have used their scientific status to postulate that there is no purpose to life; however, these are their own personal beliefs, and not scientific opinions. Science can only describe how the world is; not how the world should be.

Response: Can you see the conflict here? On one hand there is no purpose yet life happens.

3) Misconception: “evolution is just a theory”

What is really meant by this is that “evolution is just a guess.” This is a misunderstanding based on the difference between the scientific definition of theory and the colloquial use of theory. In common usage, a theory means a guess, and it is used when someone is taking a guess about a causal explanation. In science, however, a theory is as big as it gets. A scientific theory is a coherent body of interconnected statements, based on reasoning and evidence, which explains a variety of observations. Because a theory is a complex of interconnected statements, it does not stand or fall based on a single critical test. In science, specific hypotheses are tested within an explanatory theoretical framework, and if continuously supported, are added to that framework. Also see The Nature of Science.

Describing evolution as “just a theory” also undermines all of the other major scientific theories (the theory of relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of quantum mechanics, the theory of gravity, etc.). Evolution is arguably the most well supported theory in all of science. Also see Craig Nelson’s article: Effective strategies for teaching evolution and other controversial topics in The Creation Controversy and the Science Classroom, NSTA.

Response: What is the 1,2,3, criteria that evolution had to meet that exalted it to this status (a scientific theory)? Evolutionists cannot tell us. This is because one day when evolutionists decided the “just a theory” idea needed a boost so that there would not be so many questions challenging it, they voted to “exalt” the idea to the next level. Which means that evolution is a “scientific theory” because it is the opinion of other evolutionists that it should be. Otherwise they would be able to give us the criteria evolution had to meet that made it better than all other theories. Something that not only would we gauge it by, but know when other theories are about to also meet the same criteria. But that won’t happen because then evolution would be exposed for what it really is. And to show this was all done by opinions and wants and not really any science.

4) Misconception: “evolution hasn’t been proven,” or “prove evolution to me”

These are meaningless statements. Gravity has never been proven either. Neither have cells, nor electricity. Evolution cannot be “proven” because it is a scientific theory. All ideas in science are accepted tentatively, with the understanding that eventually, with new evidence, they may be overturned. Evolution is extremely well accepted in the scientific community because of the vast amount of evidence that has been put forward for it (many, many examples, from many different biological disciplines), and the absence of any evidence against it. Because of the sheer quantity of evidence for evolution, it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be overturned. Also see The Evidence for Evolution.

Response: Gravity can be mathematically calculated. Evolution cannot. Cells and electricity? There are 2 things wrong out of the 3 listed. And I’m going to use a evolutionist famous debate tactic by saying this: What does gravity or electricity have to do with biological evolution? And the next statement is an oxymoron reasoning attempt when so many evolutionists will claim that: Evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence. Evolution is accepted in science because science is controlled by atheists who rather die than contemplate a Creator. And as far as the quantity of evidence goes. All dug up evidence has to be interpreted right? And who interprets it? Evolutionists do. So what interpretation should we expect from an evolutionist? Now for the bias comment that sums up why no other idea will ever be contemplated regardless of what it is: it is “extremely” unlikely that it will ever be overturned. Notice the word extremely. You see to the extreme does this person believe in evolution or they would not have made that statement. Evolution cannot be falsified not because of the evidence, but because evolutionist have “extreme” belief in it. Or in the case of this person denying belief: He “extremely” accepts it above everything else.

5) Misconception: “no one was there to see the origin of life, so any ideas about it are just a guess”

First, evolutionary theory does not specifically address the origin of life, but the origin of species. In fact, many argue that a discussion of evolution should not include the origin of life, since this issue deals with prebiotic events, and has little to do with biological evolution.

Second, it is true that no one was there to see the origin of life. This speaks to a larger question about methods used in the historical sciences. So how do we know anything about the past? Clues to the past are always left behind. This is how detectives figure out how a crime was committed, even if there were no eyewitnesses. Scientists use clues left in the fossil record, for example, to make inferences about biological history. Scientists’ ideas about the past are based on evidence; they are not “just a guess” (see “evolution is just a theory” above).

Response:
First: If abiogenesis cannot be proven then science would have to contemplate other alternatives. So a Godless origin of life through the evolution process actually relies on abiogenesis. Evolutionist like to separate support mechanism for evolution that have major problems. This is done to separate the problems from actually being problems for evolution. In political circles it’s called distancing yourself from anything that may cause you a problem while embracing everything else that does not. Now if the abiogenesis idea were to one day have remarkable evidence like life being made in a lab from dead matter. Suddenly it would become a major part of evolution. But as long as any idea like this has major problems the only way evolutionists can deal with the issues as a cop-out is to distance themselves and act as if it does not really matter.

Second: This reasoning is flawed because they are treating the fossil record (clues left behind) as if it were some type of empirical time keeping of history. Problem is, it has several flaws in its history recording, and the assumption that it solely supports evolution.

  • Evolutionists cannot come up with an observable mechanism that requires time to make layers out of sediments and rocks. Water will sort layers and is observable, time will not.
  • They ignore the fact of “cross contamination” as if it would never exist in the fossil record. The reason the fossils can date the layers, and the layers can date the fossils (circular reasoning) is because the layers will leave their age dating markers on the fossils in just a few years. So if a 4,000 year old fossil gets buried in a layer that dates 4 million years ago. It will date the age of the layer (cross contamination) instead of how old it really is. That is how you get blood and soft tissue inside of millions of year old dinosaur bones. They are not as old as we think they are. On this they have to be willingly ignorant because if not the fossil record would not work for evolution.
  • In order for the fossil record to solely support evolution, all fossils would have to be simple to complex. This is also because complex to simple does not make sense. The trilobite has fully formed systems. organs, and complex eyes. Complexity is a word that evolutionists hate, but it’s not suppose to exist in the bottom most layers. This is because there would have to be an evolution tree that shows “how it got that complex” not just poof there it is (Complexity with no simple steps). Creation does not have a system of simple to complex so this is what creationists would expect to see.
  • Living fossils are another problem for the fossil record being an accurate record of life and time. Living Fossils are where the fossil is found in one layer and alive today. There are over 30 known living fossils and they all have the same problem. The fossil record did not record them surviving beyond the time-line of the layer they were found in. In other words they are only found in one layer where they died and in no other layer proving they survived. Being found in other layers means the evidence points to them surviving. But over 30 times this does not happen.
  • Then there’s the order of aquatic life habitat. The fossil record is in the exact order as how life lives in the ocean today (their living habitat). Bottom dwellers first, mid dwellers second, and top dwellers third. How does life evolve in that exact order? It don’t. It gets buried in that order during the flood when the sediments came up with all the water coming up from under the crust of the earth. When life gets buried where it lives then the fossils will line up just like that. And that is what we see. This would also explain complexity being where it should not be in the evolution scheme of things because evolution did not happen.

6) Misconception: “science cannot explain X , therefore evolution must be false, and creationism true”

There is a huge difference between something that is unexplained by science, and something that science is unable to explain. This argument, called the “God of the gaps” approach by philosophers, has been used countless times for phenomena that were as yet unexplained by science, but for which scientific explanations were eventually found. This line of thinking sets up a dichotomy between science and religion. It implies that if science cannot explain X , then God must be responsible for it. This argument is harmful to religion, and has been rejected for more than a century by most theologians. Following this line of reasoning, when science eventually finds an explanation for X , then that must mean that God had nothing to do with it. This is bad for religion, and most religious leaders find it to be an ineffective route to faith.

This also illustrates a common tactic used by professional creationists. Rather than put forward positive evidence for their own ideas, they try to discredit evolution, and then claim you must then accept creationism. However, even if evolution were disproved some day, creationism is not the only other option (see “you should just teach creationism, too” below).

Response: I guess this is what you call the kettle calling the pot black. This is what evolutionists do in debates all the time. I find this finger-pointing ironic. Being blind to their own tactics is common, as they also ignore the problems with their ideas. If the evolutionists can get the creationists to stop using a good tactic to debate with, it gives them the advantage. And that’s what’s going on here. The only reason they complain is because it does what it was intended to do.

7) Misconception: “Darwin recanted his belief in evolution on his deathbed”

First, Darwin did not “believe in” evolution; he was convinced by the evidence he uncovered that it was the best explanation for the origin of species. Second, Darwin’s family denies he recanted his acceptance of evolution. Third, even if he had recanted, it would mean absolutely nothing for evolutionary theory. Darwin was the “father” of the field of evolutionary biology, but he was not the first to discover evolution. Several others had proposed the general idea of evolution before Darwin (e.g. Lamarcke). Darwin’s contribution was to: 1) gather a lot of evidence for evolution (i.e. shared ancestry), and 2) describe the first plausible mechanism of evolution (natural selection). In addition, a lot of work has been done in the past century and a half to add to and modify his ideas into the explanatory framework that evolutionary theory is today. Scientists do not blindly accept evolution because Darwin “said so;” they accept it based on the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and the absence of any evidence against it.

Response:
First: Evolutionists like to imply that Darwin started to accept evolution when he saw what he did on that island. Truth be told that Darwin cataloged all that he found and ship all the evidence off to people he trusted to have them interpret things for him. He was not convinced by the evidence he was convinced by the interpretation of the evidence and this did not happen for several years after the voyage.  Those wanting to accept evolution as true will interpret the evidence to do just that.

Second: What Darwin did put his family on the map of respect in scientific circles. To not deny this recant claim ever happened would mean shame in the most hateful manner one can imagine. Followed by gossip, rumors and out right lies from all those who would now hate everyone in that family if they had done this.

Third: To make a really bad situation not seem so bad, you have to make others believe that it would mean “absolutely nothing”. Going to this effort actually shows that it would mean something.

What you are not being told about the rest of what is said is that Darwin is a known plagiarizer. The idea of Natural Selection was not his own. Edward Blythe came up with that idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth But giving Darwin credit for it makes evolution look better. Darwin also took ideas from his grandfather’s booked called: Zoonomia. the laws of organic life. In every instance Darwin used other people’s ideas he never gave credit to them. So he plagiarized all his works. But as the evolutionist will say: So what? Now can you imagine if a creationist did that? Never hear the end of it and “so what” would not work.

8) Misconception: “evolution is racist/sexist/elitist/etc.”

All of the ideas that have been promoted in the name of evolution and Darwinism actually pre-date Darwin by centuries. Therefore, evolution and Darwinism are not the cause of these ideas. Darwin himself was very opposed to slavery. After Darwin’s ideas about natural selection were widely known, some people used their very naïve and incorrect interpretation of the scientific ideas to justify their political and social beliefs (e.g. Social Darwinism). They claimed that some races, for example, are biologically superior and more “fit” than others (the Nazis, for example, used these arguments). They justified their beliefs by claiming they were “natural.” However, this is the philosophical fallacy called naturalism: claiming that what is natural is good. In other words, “what is, is what ought to be.” There is no philosophical foundation to naturalism (see Robert Pennock’s book: The Tower of Babel).

The philosophy underlying social Darwinism is very different from biological evolution. On the contrary, evolution unites all of humankind: we are all related through common ancestry. In fact, evolutionary biologists have revealed through genetic studies that there is no biological basis for the concept of race in humans (see Joseph Graves’ book: The Emperor’s New Clothes).
There is, in fact, an extremely important social role of evolution. Evolutionary theory forms the basis and the foundation of medical and biotechnology, agriculture, conservation of species and wildlife management, and many other fields of increasing importance to society (see Applied Evolution).

Response: The idea came from the full name of Darwin’s book that was later removed. Why hide it if that’s not what was meant? The pics below speak for themselves.

The rest on this is here: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=667

9) Misconception: “you should just teach creationism, too”

This is a very popular argument, even with people who do not identify themselves as creationists, since it appeals to the American sense of fairness. However, the courts have continuously ruled creationism/creation science to be a religious view, and not a science (see NCSE’s “Eight Significant Court Decisions” by Molleen Matsumura).
As such, they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which protects our freedom to practice the religion of our choice, without having the state force a particular religion on us. Creation science cannot, therefore, be taught as science in public schools
.
Even if we could teach creationism in public schools, which type of creationism should we teach? There are many different types of creationism (see Eugenie Scott’s Creation/Evolution Continuum),

as well as hundreds of different creation stories from various cultures and religions. Should we also teach about the Raëlian view that intelligent aliens created life on earth? Which explanation (theory) for the origin of species we teach is based on how successful it is in its ability to explain the available evidence. It is not based on which explanation is more popular with the general public. We have a responsibility to teach how the world is, not how we might like it to be.

Response: Cases in courts are lost all the time because of poor representation which does not reflect on the credibility of creation. Biblical creation was taught at one time as science in our schools. The reason it had to be removed is because creation and evolution cannot work side by side. And since an atheistic science was taking over, creation had to be removed. And by the way, the case that got it removed used evidence that is now considered to be fraudulent. You remember the tooth that was found and was claimed to have been from prehistoric man? Then later when someone returned to the site to dig up (an evolutionist I might add) the rest of the evidence it all belonged to a pig. Evolutionists don’t like talking about this because it’s embarrassing. They were so desperate to get God out of their way they were willing to do anything.

Other misconceptions:1. Humans evolved from chimpanzees.
False. According to evolution, humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.

Response: This is a cop-out answer to avoid the problem with some people being offended by the idea that humans evolved from Chimps. The thing here is to act like: No evolutionist ever implied this. No book ever said this. No human evolution chart ever meant this. So where did the idea come from? Did the creationists one day say: Hey I know we will discredit evolution by saying they say we came from chimps? Nope. It was taught this way when I went to school. And in some schools it still is. The effort here is learning to do damage control.

2. Some organisms are “lower” or “less-evolved”.
False. All living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus are equally “evolved”.

Response: This is at best an oxymoron statement.

3. Evolution results in increased complexity.
False. It certainly can, but complexity is not always advantageous and sometimes simple traits are favoured.

Response: This is also an oxymoron statement. Does anything evolve back from a multi-cell life form to a single cell life form in the evolution idea? Nope. So evolution has a starting point which is at the bottom and has to move forward.

4. Evolution plans ahead to achieve goals.
False. Only traits that provide an immediate advantage will be selected for. Traits don’t stick around with the intention of becoming useful some day.

Response: Here’s the kicker to this problem. it takes intelligence to:
a) To form a trait.
b) To select a trait.

Evolutionists would have us belief that these things just happen because evolution is a non-intelligent process. Yet they cannot explain how even a process can determine how one cell in the human body should be made in order to do a particular function so that the body can function. If we did not have white blood cells we would become sick and die or remain sickly our whole lives. So the question would be:
A) What formed a white blood cell trait?
B) What knew what trait to select to solve this problem?

It’s a huge leap of faith to believe that it just happens, or to believe that an all natural non-intelligent process would somehow know? No intelligence = no knowledge. No intelligence + no knowledge = random selection. No intelligence + no knowledge +random selection = a process that does not know what to do next. solve problems, or anything else. It’s like trying to make a computer that has no operating system surf the internet. You would be asking it to have the programing (a form of intelligence) to do something it cannot do without the programing (intelligence). Evolution is essentially a supposed process that teaches that miracles can be performed by unintelligent processes. To put this into prospective, it’s like expecting a new-born baby to be as smart as Einstein was and do what he did. Basically expecting miracles from morons. It’s not going to happen. Unintelligent things are not going to do intelligent things by random chance.

5. Evolution ignores the impossibility of irreducible complexity.
False. An evolutionary model would be logically incorrect if the necessity of a trait preceded its appearance, and thus no model depends on this impossibility.

Response: This is easy to address. the human body has several interdependent systems. Can you name one that can exist and function normally without the other systems intact and functioning also?  Example: Everything in the human body requires oxygen to function. So one system that has to be there for all the others to work is the circulatory system. But in order for that to work you need a heart which means the muscular system has to be there. But in order for the heart to beat it has to receive signals. Which means the nervous system has to be there. See where this goes? You cannot have not even one system in the human body that can exist and function without the others being there and functioning as well. In which complete instant creation explains and solves the problem. Slow gradual evolution does not.

6. Humans represent the end product of evolution.
False. If anything, humans demonstrate that intelligence is an extremely powerful adaptation.

Response: What is higher evolved then humans according to evolution?

7. For a mutation to be significant, it must occur in a gene.
False. Mutations in regulatory elements can affect where and when genes are expressed, leading to major changes.

Response: Genes are the programing for change so this is an oxymoron.

8. Individuals can evolve, and a developed mutation is passed down on to future generations.
False. This is the logic behind Lamarckism, and we all know Lamarckism is false… right? Mutations must arise in the sperm or eggs to be heritable.

Response: Which means if it has to be in the genes. This person just contradicted themselves from the question and answer before this one.

9. Macroevolutionary changes above the level of species occur from one generation to the next.
False. Evolution is a gradual process; it does not predict that one animal will give birth to an entirely new animal, nor does it claim that this has ever happened in the past.

Response: Evolution is what it needs to be in every situation. So if a faster type of evolution is needed to explain a quicker change a way to make it work would be thought up. So slow and fast evolution can happen all that’s needed is a reason to have to explain it. Problem is, word don’t make new truths and realities just because we think they should.

10. Hybridization is an evolutionary mechanism that produces new species.
True, but only in rare cases (ex. certain plants). Frequent hybridization between two species generally counteracts speciation by mixing gene pools.

Response: I suggest you look into GMOs (genetically modified foods).

11. Natural selection is the only evolutionary mechanism.
False. Natural selection is important, but there are several mechanisms driving evolution.

Response: Being that I have never heard anyone say that I don;t know where that’s coming from. But I do know that each support mechanism for evolution depends on in what context it’s being used. If the mechanism is being used in a negative light towards evolution then it’s not a part of evolution. If it’s positive then it’s a part of evolution.

12. “Fitness” refers to strength or power.
False. In the context of biological evolution, fitness refers to reproductive success. In other words, the number of fertile offspring an individual can produce in their lifetime.

Response: In several observable instances, there are examples of the strongest being the one that is able to mate. If 2 lions are fighting over a female who gets to mate with that female? The strongest one that wins the fight. So this reasoning is wrong.

13. The phrase “Survival of the Fittest” suggests that the strong individuals should kill the weak.
False. In the context of biological evolution, this statement refers to the “survival” of an individual’s genetic code in future generations via the production of offspring.

14. Social Darwinism and biological evolution are one in the same.
False. Just as religion has been misused to support personal and political agendas, so has evolution. The vast majority of evolutionists do not support Social Darwinist ideas.

Response: What does religion have to do with this? the evidence I have shown in the pictures shows that this comment is also wrong. Whether someone agrees or not does not change what has happened. And because no one spoke up against these things I have shown on this page is the same as condoning it.

15. Richard Dawkins is the spokesman for evolution.
False. Just because he’s famous, doesn’t mean his opinions are representative of what all evolutionists think.

Response: Then evolutionists need to speak up as a whole to make that point instead of being quite about it and bringing it up in only circles where his actions may make their debates less effective. But not doing so means your actions do not support your claims.

16. Darwin is the leader of modern evolutionary research.
False. Just as you wouldn’t credit Alexander Graham Bell with the invention of the newest iPhone, Charles Darwin is not directly responsible for modern evolutionary ideas.

Response: this reasoning is flawed. It’s like saying that a creation can happen without a Creator. This is just another attempt to separate the problems from evolution so that evolution won’t look as bad.

17. The old earth theory was made up to accommodate the evolution timeline.
False. The old earth view was accepted among scientists long before Darwin came along.

Response: But it did not take like wildfire until evolution came along. This is because before evolution creationists ideas were accepted as science. So many scientists of that time did not believe in old earth. Most of the basics of how science works was founded by Christians.

18. Gaps or uncertainties in the fossil record present a serious problem for evolution.
False. Fossil formation, fossil preservation, and fossil discovery are all low-probability events. Gaps in the fossil record are expected.

Response: The fossil record has many problems. One is finding complexity in the lowest layers. The trilobite has fully formed organs, systems, and a complex eye. Being in the bottom layers means there is no evolution tree to it to show how it evolved to this complexity. It’s like: poof there it is. And we all know evolution is not supposed to work that way.

19. Since humans are animals, it’s acceptable to act like animals.
What does this even mean? Clams don’t act like elephants. Rabbits don’t act like jellyfish. Animal behaviours are diverse and unique, including human behaviour.

Response: This was not a Christian idea. it has been remarks made by people who want to use this as an excuse to live as they please. Evolution just happened to give them this idea. I have seen this said in movies and on TV, I have even heard it said by someone.

20. Evolution promotes racism.
False. Evolution actually promotes racial equality by suggesting that all humans shared a common ancestor and have been evolving for the same amount of time.

Response: This was answered earlier with pictures showing how evolution was used to do just this. And the comments made by those who were there in its beginning were racist. You cannot make a leopard change it’s spots. Just like you cannot take racism from a racist and his ideas. And if you are not racist you don;t have friends that are racists. Darwin did.

21. Evolutionary hypotheses never change—that would be a sign of a weak theory.
False. Hypotheses are revised and discarded all the time, just like any other field of empirical science. This is a strength, not a weakness.

Response: Yet no one evolutionist can actually tell us what 1,2,3, criteria evolution had to meet to become a scientific theory. Which means it was exalted to that level by mere opinions and the need to have it sound like it meets a criteria that cannot even be defined. Because if it could be defined then everyone would see where it fails.

22. Scientific journals only publish results that support evolution.
False. While positive results are often showcased in the news and on non-scholarly websites, journals publish negative/inconclusive results too.

Response: Only the ones that does not really hurt the theory, or ones that can be explained away.

23. Scientists work together to make sure weaknesses in the theory remain hidden.
False. Research is a competitive field, and experimental results are under constant scrutiny.

Response: When only evolutionists work with evolution does one expect fairness? Would you send an evolution paper to a creationist group and expect fairness? The reason only evolutionists are allowed to test or do anything else with evolution is because it needs to be protected. Because if the evidence were as strong as what’s claimed then the evidence would have mowed everyone over a long time ago.

24. Evolution cannot be falsified.
False. There are plenty of discoveries that could falsify or dramatically alter our current understanding of evolution.

Response: Will never happen. A evolutionist allowing evolution to be falsified is like an evolutionist denying their own existence. This is because of all the millions and billions of dollars spent on it, all the millions of hours spent in research, all the papers written, all the books written etc… All of this would have to be denied. and on top of that every evolutionist would have to explain why they lied. None of that will ever happen. There is too much at stake to ever allow evolution to be falsified.

25. All evolutionists are atheists.
False. There are many theistic evolutionists.

Response: God does not accept halfway believers that know that the Bible contradicts evolution. So people who claim to believe in God and also evolution actually deny the creation by the Creator. So they might as well be atheists. God is not going to accept those who claim to believe yet deny Him in every thought and deed concerning this issue. What we believe is supposed to glorify and edify God. Evolution does neither. It cannot even be used to bring someone to salvation. That in itself proves it is not of God.