Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'm going to carry this conversation on to it's own thread. I don't think it belongs in a thread about Star Wars... lolEven assuming all that she says is true, she even admits that there are beneficial outcomes.. haha.. pretty sure that's all that the process of evolution needs...
Point is: there's a whole lot more that Creationism needs to account for that that video totally ignores... but I'll bring them up in a new thread...
edit: click below
Evolution vs Creationism
What do we need to account for? There's nothing we cannot answer.
THE APPENDIX
The appendix is not vestigial.
I quote,
"The appendix is a storage place for "good bacteria," that replenishes the stomach following sickness or disease. I quote,
"Researchers in the United States say the appendix produces and protects good germs for the gut by "rebooting" the digestive system.
The team of immunologists at Duke University Medical Center say the human digestive system contains massive amounts of bacteria most of which are good and help the digestion of food.
However the researchers say sometimes the bacteria die off or are purged from the intestines as in diseases such as cholera or dysentery."
"Dr. Bill Parker, a professor of surgery and one of the scientists responsible for establishing its status as a useful organ, says the function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria that populates the human digestive system and where it is located just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine, helps support that theory.¡±
The study appears in the online edition of the Journal of Theoretical Biology."¡±
End of quote
Source: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/08/30907.aspx
WHALE AND DOLPHIN PELVIC BONES
Whale and dolphin pelvic bones are "not" vestigial. These bones are necessary for mating they attach to the ischiocavernosus muscles, which are attached to and control the penis Hence, whale pelvic bones are not proof of evolution.
I quote,
¡°For decades, scientists assumed that the relatively small pelvic bones found in whales were simple remnants of their land-dwelling past, ¡°useless vestiges¡± that served no real purpose, akin to the human appendix or tailbone.
A new study, co-authored by Erik Ot¨¢rola-Castillo, a fellow in David Pilbeam¡¯s paleoanthropology lab in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, suggests that the bones, in fact, have a very specific purpose ¡ª particularly when it comes to making baby whales and baby dolphins. The research is described in a recent paper in Evolution.¡±
End of quote
Source: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/10/status-shift-for-whale-pelvic-bones/
DISTANT STARLIGHT
YouTube video
YouTube video
SO-CALLED FOSSIL RECORD
¡¡
There is no geologic column and there is no fossil record. Let me ask you something: how do you determine the age of an index fossil[? Atheistic/evolutionary paleontologists say ¡±by the layer of rock that the index fossil is found in.¡±
So let me ask you another question: how do you determine the age of the rock layer? Atheistic/evolutionary paleontologists say, "by the age of the index fossil." This is "circular reasoning." Besides, there fossils out of order with respect to the alleged geologic ages.
In addition, there are polystrate fossils (some upside down) running straight through these so-called rock ages/layers.
So-called highly developed fossils at the lowest layers, and supposedly not so developed fossil in uppermost layers. In addition, there are polystrate fossils (some upside down) running straight through these so-called rock ages/layers. So the rock layers don't represent different ages. Moreover, these facts are proof of, and consistent with a "catastrophic flood."
Furthermore, no fossil is proof of evolution. You cannot prove than any fossils had any offspring, or that any fossils are related to one another. Again, all a fossil proves is that something died. You cannot say with any level of confidence or certainty that any two fossils are related. It¡¯s all conjecture.
YouTube video
OUT-OF-PLACE FOSSILS, ERRORS IN DATING, LIVING ORGANISMS
Dinosaur dung containing different types of "grasses," living fossils such as the "Coelacanth," the ¡°unevolved/unchanged lungfish population,¡± fossils of "Anomalocaris," the "Wollemi pine," ¡°whale fossils, clams, corals, fish, ammonites, and other marine fossils¡± found high on Mount Everest, Andean Mountains, and other mountaintops, are "all" examples of organisms that were either thought to "no" longer exist (according to erudite, scholarly evolutionists), or are out of place in the "so-called" geologic column.
TIKTAALIK
Tiktaalik is allegedly the ancestor of the first, four-legged animal (tetrapod), that descended from fish.
However, there's a limestone slab from Poland with fossil footprints "pre-dating" Tiktaalik.
So this is an obvious contradiction, and as a result, Tiktaalik cannot be the transitional link between fish and the first tetrapod.
JELLYFISH
Secondly, fossilized jellyfish (which are dated to have lived 500 million years ago) are "identical" to jellyfish today.
There are "no" signs of evolution in jellyfish swimming in the ocean at present. In addition, Darwin claimed that no "soft" organism could be preserved.
SQUID
Third, fossilized squid (which are dated to have lived 150 million years ago) are "identical" to squid today.
Again, there are "no" signs of evolution in any squid swimming in the ocean at present. This discovery refutes Darwin's claim that no "soft" organism could be preserved.
YouTube video
YouTube video
HUMAN CHROMOSOME 2
¡°Human chromosome 2 is "not" proof that two ape chromosomes fused and created human chromosome 2.
Chromosomes "don't" fuse at their telomeres (in living animals or in nature) except in "degenerative" cases, such as cancer. In fact, telomeres are "not" designed to fuse at all.
Telomeres are functional machines that maintain genomic stability, and enable the cells to work properly. The so-called fusion site isn't a static location where nothing is taking place.
Actually, it's not a fusion site at all, but a "functional" site inside a gene that is ripe with activity.
Messenger RNA starts in this transcription site.¡±
YouTube video
http://www.icr.org/article/more-dna-evidence-against-human-chromosome
DOVER, PENNSYLVANIA
I don¡¯t know what you feel this proves. Why would an atheistic judge rule in favor of Creationism? Believe it or not, there is zero tolerance for those in the scientific community from disagreeing with evolutionary theory lest they lose their job, or be regarded as an outcast, unintelligent, or unscientific. For this reason, a number of secret dissenters remain intimidated and refrain from saying, writing, or speaking anything that contradicts evolution. Evolution is a sacred lie that does not put up with objectors. But some brave dissenters (for the sake of truth) have risked their names, reputations, and stations in the science world to proclaim the truth.
I leave you with this http://www.discovery.org/a/24041.
Also, as of January 2016, "Nearly 900 scientists, including Tour, have currently signed, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which expresses skepticism in the claims of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."
Click http://creationtoday.org/famous-chemist-drops-bomb-on-evolution/
.
This University of Leeds Professor¡ªwho is a professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory¡ªdiscusses some of the challenges with evolutionary theory: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1492.
In addition, this medical doctor wrote a peer-reviewed paper in a medical journal that challenges evolution theory: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html
Find out why Dean Kenyon, an emeritus Professor of Biology, and one of the former leading, chemical evolutionary theorist in the world, no longer believes that the first proteins could have assembled without the help of genetic instructions, or that amino acids are capable of self-ordering into meaningful biological sequences without pre-existent, genetic material.
He cites multiple difficulties with chemical evolutionary theory, primarily the origin of genetic information itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVl_PvR4Bm4&t=91s
Now, concerning the origin of life¡ªwhich I am aware that evolutionists do not affirm that evolutionary theory claims to explain, but only the origin of species once they are already formed¡ªDr. Stephen Meyers discusses the probability of a functional protein arising by chance from amino acids is 1/10^164!
Dr. Meyers goes on to state that ¡°No serious scientist thinks that life began by chance¡±:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZF-9ZjPAU
ZVl_PvR4Bm4&t=136s
ZVl_PvR4Bm4&t=136s