Archive for January, 2009

Population Growth falsifies Evolution

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on January 8, 2009 by egoeimi3

You ever wonder how evolution explain population growth enlight of the religous based theory?  You should because they don’t explain it very well, and it falls under the fallcy credulity.  Let me give you a quote from creationist scientist on the issue and you can do this yourself, factoring in birth rates, death rates, war, famine, etc, which the evolutionist give such a sad answer if we were acutally around that long.  Heck Neaderthals falsify evolution on population growth alone.  If they were here a 100,000 years ago, and applying the the current growth rate and factoring in all those things, there should be in the neighborhood of 4,000,000,000 bones in the ground, but there has only been 300 found in the ground?  Wow, just ad hoc it away as the story go’s.

‘Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it!’    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp 

Try that on for size.  Even given a small growth rate applied to the claim of evolving from ape like creatures in that time frame, it doesn’t work.  But leave it to them, they will explain it away and here is a perfect example of that.

‘Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.”    10 Even if the population were a million, the low reproductive rate would not be sufficient to eliminate harmful mutations. The mutational load alone would have ensured extinction. For details, see ReMine, W., The Biotic Message, St Paul Science, St Paul, Minnesota, 1993

So as you can see, with a little common sense and checking the numbers, it just doesn’t add up in the faith of Evolution.

Advertisements

Macro-Evolution has never been observed!

Posted in Macro-Evolution on January 4, 2009 by egoeimi3

Below I will place the debate between what talkorgins says and creationwiki documented response.

It’s funny how this go’s because evolutionist want you to believe it without seeing the truth of what creationist are saying clearly.  This debate you can judge for yourself.

Claim: CB901

No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

Source: Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6. Response:

Creation Wiki response: (Talk Origins quotes in blue.)

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

 

It’s remarkable that evolutionists do not see the faith that their worldview requires. They claim they have evidence in Speciation, which is not evidence for universal common descent in any shape or form. Then when asked for observational evidence for the theory of evolution (i.e. change beyond the kind barrier) they claim that would disprove Darwinian Evolution! It has been demonstrated, as far as the evidence goes, that minor change sometimes referred to as micro-evolution does not lead to evolution on a large scale.

2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

 

The evidences presented in that essay are things such as vestigal structures and developmental biology which are not evidence for evolution. See True Origin for a thorough rebuttal of this essay written by Ashby Camp. Furthermore, there are some major problems with macro-evolution:

 

  • Evidence for such an occurrence is lacking in the fossil record.
  • Common structures can support a common designer thesis just as well as one of common ancestry.
  • Macroevolution is implausible, proteins evolving in small increments fits the evidence, crossing the large gaps is not realistic.(Plaisted 2005)

3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Very true, but it proves nothing close to universal common descent. Creationists would agree that speciation has been observed, but that is not what the debate is about. Walter Remine comments:

In creation-evolution debates, “evolution” isn’t mere ‘change in gene frequencies.’ Unless context indicates otherwise, it refers, ultimately, to naturalistic molecules-to-man transformation – anything less involves creation. “Macroevolution” makes the large-scale transformation fully explicit.

4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

Micro-evolution is observed, but there are limits to the variation.

1.) An observational limit which we see all the time, dogs always produce dogs, cows always produce cows, etc.

2.) Original amount of information available: From the original starting point information is only lost and not added. Mutations occur which scramble the existing DNA and over the years certain traits are selected and passed down. As this process occurs information is lost until there can be no more variation because there is nothing to select from. This creates a natural barrier that prevents evolutionary change on a large scale.

5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

 

Detailed series at the following link deals with this issue in depth. Transitional forms  This one will come later!