Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 4

 

All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly (f). Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

 

Macroevolution cannot occur (g). 

Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life (h). 

Life could not result from a “big bang” (i). 

 

f.    Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×10^²⁴ bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

 

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”   Ibid., p. 107.

 

“If there are more than several dozen nucleotides in a functional sequence, we know that realistically they will never just ‘fall into place.’ This has been mathematically demonstrated repeatedly. But as we will soon see, neither can such a sequence arise randomly one nucleotide at a time. A pre-existing ‘concept’ is required as a framework upon which a sentence or a functional sequence must be built. Such a concept can only pre-exist within the mind of the author.” Sanford, pp. 124–125.

 

g.    Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell.  Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.

 

“The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.”   Gitt, p. 124.

 

h.    Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also [[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html#wp1052519] “Second Law of Thermodynamics” [/url]]]

 

i.    If the “big bang” occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Pahu]

 

Compatible Senders and Receivers

 

 

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver beforehand; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

 

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

 

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences19.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

 

[JTC]

That's a very interesting website you gave the link to. I read from page 16 to 23. It is sad that today young people are working to disprove a theory that was never proven in the first place. Although this is sad, this is exactly where the world is. I love the pages that spoke of fossil evidence that indicates millions of creatures died and were buried rapidly and that indicates a world wide flood not a natural death and normal fossilization. I particularly liked the fossil of a large fish swallowing a smaller fish. What a strange fossil to find. I wonder how many there are like that. Along with these strange fossils was a dragonfly wing that measured 1 to 1.5 ft. in length. How big was the entire dragonfly, we don't know. What's interesting for us is the huge dragonfly wing was found near the fossils of 1 fish swallowing another fish. This finding alone throws doubt on several ideas from evolution. It's no surprise to me because I was lucky enough to have grown up back when they taught us that evolution had never been proved and that it's just an idea. Page 23  discusses the gaps in the fossil record. These gaps were taught to me as the missing link in the idea of evolution. The fossil record shows there isn't 1 missing link there are dozens of them. This is what convinced me evolution is false.

Edited March 16, 2017 by JTC

[Pahu]

 

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1

 

 

When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve.   They call this convergent evolution.

 

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease.

 

Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

 

a.     “...the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).” Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

 

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid  Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

 

b.    Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences21.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[JTC]

I love this thread and I love the website Pahu gives us the link to. Every time I go there I wind up reading about 10 - 20 pages ahead. I just wish I had the background knowledge to understand most of what it says.

Today I reached page 33 and this page I understand. I know evolution is false bc I was lucky enough to go to school while professors still told us the truth about evolution. That truth is that it's a theory, not a fact, and some of them thought it might be proven someday but most of them thought it never would. Their reasoning for this was simple. Darwin's book that put forth his theory was published in 1871 and I was in school in 1974 learning this. One student asked approximately how long does science allow for evidence to be found that would support any given theory? The professor laughed and said it varies, 20, 30, 40 even 60 years are often needed but it could take longer. So the student asked, what about 100 years? The professor blushed and said if no credible evidence is can be found after 100 years science dictates that the theory be abandoned and other theories should be examined. This is how science works, this is how knowledge progresses. It's almost 150 yrs since Darwin put forth his theory of evolution and there's still no credible evidence. So why, oh why do scientists keep working on this, many know it's false? Page 33 of the website tells us. It's what I call the green god, Money. There is so much money tied up in the false belief that evolution is true that if the scientists admit it's not many will lose their jobs and their credibility. They'd have to go flip hamburgers to make a living. Evolution is the biggest scam academia has ever put over on the world. Go read page 33.

 http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html

Many of the top evolutionists know it's false. The irony is the more they try to prove it's true the more evidence they uncover proving it's false. We need a new and brave generation to come along, one who doesn't have a vested interest in this and that generation has to tell the world evolution is not true. Some will believe in the creator God and others won't, but they will stop trying to prove something they know is false.

[Pahu]

 

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

 

 

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

 

c.     “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship...it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units...” Nilsson, p. 1143.

 

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

 

d.    Fix, pp. 189–191.

 

Denton, pp. 142–155.

 

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. [emphasis in original] It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

 

e.     “Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences21.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Pahu]

On 3/15/2017 at 3:58 PM, Pahu said:

 

Compatible Senders and Receivers

 

 

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver beforehand; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

 

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

 

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences19.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

 

It is refreshing that one of my readers actually thinks. Keep up the good work.

[Pahu]

On 3/24/2017 at 11:51 PM, JTC said:

I love this thread and I love the website Pahu gives us the link to. Every time I go there I wind up reading about 10 - 20 pages ahead. I just wish I had the background knowledge to understand most of what it says.

Today I reached page 33 and this page I understand. I know evolution is false bc I was lucky enough to go to school while professors still told us the truth about evolution. That truth is that it's a theory, not a fact, and some of them thought it might be proven someday but most of them thought it never would. Their reasoning for this was simple. Darwin's book that put forth his theory was published in 1871 and I was in school in 1974 learning this. One student asked approximately how long does science allow for evidence to be found that would support any given theory? The professor laughed and said it varies, 20, 30, 40 even 60 years are often needed but it could take longer. So the student asked, what about 100 years? The professor blushed and said if no credible evidence is can be found after 100 years science dictates that the theory be abandoned and other theories should be examined. This is how science works, this is how knowledge progresses. It's almost 150 yrs since Darwin put forth his theory of evolution and there's still no credible evidence. So why, oh why do scientists keep working on this, many know it's false? Page 33 of the website tells us. It's what I call the green god, Money. There is so much money tied up in the false belief that evolution is true that if the scientists admit it's not many will lose their jobs and their credibility. They'd have to go flip hamburgers to make a living. Evolution is the biggest scam academia has ever put over on the world. Go read page 33.

 http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html

Many of the top evolutionists know it's false. The irony is the more they try to prove it's true the more evidence they uncover proving it's false. We need a new and brave generation to come along, one who doesn't have a vested interest in this and that generation has to tell the world evolution is not true. Some will believe in the creator God and others won't, but they will stop trying to prove something they know is false.

With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution?  Following are some quotes from noted evolutionists, which will shed light on this subject:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote:  "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

(The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

 

H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved ... then the entire historic fabric of Christianity—the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement—collapsed like a house of cards."  (The Outlines of History)

 

Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist” :

 

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption. ... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. ... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom” (1966, 3:19).

 

The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), In answer to the question on the Merv Griffin show: ‘Why do people believe in evolution?” said, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”

 

George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

 

According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.

[enoob57]

3 minutes ago, Pahu said:

It is refreshing that one of my readers actually thinks. Keep up the good work.

two actually 

[JTC]

1 hour ago, Pahu said:

 

With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution?  Following are some quotes from noted evolutionists, which will shed light on this subject:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote:  "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

(The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

 

H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved ... then the entire historic fabric of Christianity—the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement—collapsed like a house of cards."  (The Outlines of History)

 

Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist” :

 

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption. ... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. ... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom” (1966, 3:19).

 

The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), In answer to the question on the Merv Griffin show: ‘Why do people believe in evolution?” said, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”

 

George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

 

According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.

 

All the above quotes have merit, but the ones I think are most true are the ones that say man wanted freedom from sexual morals. We have now had that for about 50 yrs. We need to examine what it has resulted in. I'm only going to mention a few. First marriage has almost totally fallen apart. Along with that came the destruction of the traditional family. That caused an increase in crime. Children need 2 parents. There has also been a new kind of confusion that even top psychologists don't know how to deal with. Todays kids have gender confusion. Is it any wonder? Kids learn what a man is from their father and what a woman is from Mom. We call it role models. Kids need this, they even want it, although they don't know it. But to a child psychologist it's obvious. Kids from tradition families have less confusion bc they know what they are supposed to be. The teenage years are the most confusing years of life. All teenagers think they're crazy or that something is wrong with them. But that's normal for a teenager. But the ones from traditional families grow out of it. Kids from 1 parent families find a way to stop feeling confused but many join gangs or decide they want sex change operations. They think that will give them peace of mind. Others turn to drugs to kill the mental pain they're in. And today with Heroin flooding our schools they're using that. At least in my day it was mostly Marijuana and alcohol. Not that these drugs are safe but compared to Heroin they are. And all this because men wanted freedom to have sex with any woman who'd say yes without feeling guilty.

But I think that with the help of God we can fix this. We have to want to fix it first, and then if God helps us it will happen. I think God will help us because fixing it is doing God's will.