Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Pahu

Science Disproves Evolution

107 posts in this topic

Proteins 2

 

To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid ©. However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur (d). Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids (e).

 

c. “It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants], could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen.”  Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

 

d. “But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in ‘self-organization’ becomes ‘blind belief.’ No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.” Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

 

e. “I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 50.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.)  Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years.  Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

 

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium?” New Scientist, Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631–632.

 

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models  (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10–14.

 

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?” Nature,   Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

 

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371–372.

Response:

1.Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).

Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof14

References:

1.Lie-Svendsen, O. and M. H. Rees, 1996. Helium escape from the terrestrial atmosphere - the ion outflow mechanism. Journal of Geophysical Research 101: 2435-2443.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

This claim is out of date. However it can be shown that so much helium is still in the rock, that it is most consistent with young Earth.

 

The helium issue seems to be handled well in this article:

"Some creationists claim that there is too much helium in Earth's crust for the earth to be any more than two million years old (Sarfati, 2005). If Earth has existed for billions of years, there should be little helium left in deeper rocks as a result of radioactive alpha decay. They claim that if God had created the Earth with initial Helium in the atmosphere, the maximum age would be even lower than two million-perhaps even as little as 6,000 years (Humphreys et. al., 2005). The RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project, cosponsored by the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, and Answers in Genesis, claims that the amount of helium present in minerals at different depths of the earth's crust is too high to support day-age or evolutionist theories about an old Earth. They sent rock samples to a lab for helium diffusion tests, and their results were that the rock samples have too little resistance to the diffusion of Helium through the rock for the age to be greater than at most two million years.

The conclusion reached by the RATE project as to the reason for the increased amount of Helium is that sometime in the past few thousand years there was a period of increased radioactivity (DeYoung, 2005, 78). A fundamental problem with this hypothesis, however, is that the amount of energy released during the accelerated decay proposed by RATE would potentially be enough to evaporate the oceans and melt the Earth's crust (Ross, 2004, 179)."

For the full article: http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html

 

As you already know, the Institute for Creation Research, The Discovery Institute and answersingenesis are not reliable.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Proteins 2

 

To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid ©. However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur (d). Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids (e).

 

c. “It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants], could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen.”  Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

 

d. “But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in ‘self-organization’ becomes ‘blind belief.’ No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.” Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

 

e. “I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 50.

 

 

Pahu - please keep in mind, Evolution does not attempt to eplain abiogenesis.  Maybe you should start another thread for that with a different name.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....Evolution does not attempt to explain abiogenesis....

 

~

 

Well Of Course It Does (Your Mother The Turnip. Your Father The Tree)

 

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12

 

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

 

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

 

 

And Since Poor Charley Darwin's "Theories" Have Since Failed Every Test He Proposed

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

It's No Wonder His Symbionts Deny His Words

 

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because something evolved to be different does not mean it has no common ancestor. A great example of this is the lemur. It's only found on one island on Earth, because that island separated from the rest of Africa and the species there were in isolation for so long. The platypus is actually part of an order of species called 'monotremes', of which some evolved to give rise to marsupials and other mammals.

 

There are other monotremes (mammals that lay eggs) such as echidnas, (which look strikingly like hedgehogs), and if you look, there are actually three or more separate suborders of monotreme, with different genus, all in all 20 or more different species in total. Marsupials are everywhere too, as are Australosphedina fossils and those of many other egg-laying mammals similar to the platypus. The difference is the platypus is probably the only of its particular genus within the monotreme order that survived natural selection. The platypus is part of a near extinct family called Ornithohynchidae, genus ornithorhynchus. 

 

There are evolutionary links to the platypus if you look.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome~!

 

~

 

Just because something evolved to be different does not mean it has no common ancestor.

 

:thumbsup:

 

Just Because The Earth Is Brimming Full Of Amazing Creatures

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

Doesn't Mean They Don't Have

 

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

 

A Common Creator

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Beloved

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

Love, Joe

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a 4 minute video by a Christian scientist who explains fused chromosome #2.  This is one of many pieces of evidence for evolution.

 

** Video Link removed **

 

[ Please note that all videos need to be placed in the video forum for approval before they are placed on Worthy]

 

[Please do not post links to videos outside of the video forum]

Edited by ncn
Link to youtube removed
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....a Christian scientist who explains fused chromosome #2. 

 

This is one of many pieces of evidence for evolution....

 

~

 

As I See It

The Fused Chromosome #2

Shows The Handicraft Of A Common Creator 

Rather Than A Case For Common Descent From Another Of God's Creatures

 

~

 

Beloved, Variance In Kind (Evolution, lol) Does Not Lead To New Kinds

 

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:25

 

As You Can Directly Observe In Any Barnyard On Planet Earth Today

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proteins 3

 

 

Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed (f). The many attempts to show how life might have arisen on earth have instead shown

(a) the futility of that effort (g),

(b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life (h), and

© the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.

 

f. “The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.” D. E. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation,” Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.

 

Pitman, p. 140.

 

Duane T. Gish, Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life, ICR Technical Monograph, No. 1 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).

 

g. “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick, p. 88.

 

Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.” He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [see Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers,” Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]

 

h. Robert Shapiro, Origins (New York: Bantam Books, 1986).

 

The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

 

Organic molecules in life are of two types: proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Nucleic acids, which are incredibly complex, were not produced, nor would any knowledgeable person expect them to be produced.

 

The protein “building blocks” were merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory. (In 2011, several more amino acids were found in Miller’s old experimental materials, but the more complex amino acids found in life were still missing. See Eric T. Parker et al., “Primordial Synthesis of Amines and Amino Acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-Rich Spark Discharge Experiment,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 March 2011, pp. 1–6.)

 

Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.

 

Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.

 

[see:http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.html#wp1009545]

 

Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

 

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

 

 “The story of the slow paralysis of research on life’s origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of origin-of-life studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.” Behe, “Molecular Machines,” pp. 30–31.

 

Rick Pierson, “Life before Life,” Discover, August 2004, p. 8.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

g. “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick, p. 88.

 

Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.” He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [see Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers,” Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]

 

Quote mine

Being a well-famous biologist and one of the best-known proponents of panspermia, Crick is frequently quote-mined by creationists. In Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, he stated:

 

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle...

However, the ellipsis there marks the start of a less frequently quoted section (and often creationists citing this comment will leave out the ellipsis to try and punctuate it at "miracle"). Crick continues, lest he be accused of being a total idiot rather than a fairly competent scientist:

 

...so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.

In short, Crick acknowledges the difficulties in really figuring out the origin of life but doesn't suggest a literal miracle.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0