Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
ocean_vent_wide

‘Ancient’ Bacteria Still Alive and Not Evolved

Posted on

by Brian Thomas, M.S.

ocean_vent_wideArchaeans are amazing microbes that run on completely different metabolic processes than other microbes. Discovering the first of them must have been like finding a car that runs on hydrogen fuel cells amidst a landscape of gasoline-powered vehicles. This was the privilege of evolutionary biologist Carl Woese, who died on December 30, 2012.1   How did he interpret these findings, and what should we remember about his contributions?

Woese was famous for adding a whole new major classification of microbes, called archaea, that biology textbooks published about well within his lifetime. But the name assigned to this unique domain of life reflects evolutionary concepts, not science.

The biochemistry of these tiny survivors is so fundamentally different from most oxygen-burning creatures that evolutionists like Woese believed it must have evolved way back when the first normally-functioning bacteria were also inventing themselves. The name “archaea” derives from the Greek word “arkhaios,” meaning ancient or primitive….

 

Continue Reading on www.icr.org

Print Friendly and PDF
 

This entry was posted in Apologetics, Biology, Cell Biology, Christian Values, Creation Worldviews, Design, Evolution, History, Microbiology, Origins, Science, Worldviews and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • David Brown
    • G. Macher

      Please explain why Lamarckian evolution is an illusion. Your knowledge dwarfs mine.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/biology/chapter8section1.rhtml

        This link has a good explanation.

        Lamarck: Use and Disuse
        The first notable theory of evolution was proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829). He described a two-part mechanism by which evolutionary change was gradually introduced into the species and passed down through generations. His theory is referred to as the theory of transformation or Lamarckism.
        The classic example used to explain Lamarckism is the elongated neck of the giraffe. According to Lamarck’s theory, a given giraffe could, over a lifetime of straining to reach high branches, develop an elongated neck. This vividly illustrates Lamarck’s belief that use could amplify or enhance a trait. Similarly, he believed that disuse would cause a trait to become reduced. According to Lamarck’s theory, the wings of penguins, for example, were understandably smaller than the wings of other birds because penguins did not use their wings to fly.
        The second part of Lamarck’s mechanism for evolution involved the inheritance of acquired traits. He believed that if an organism’s traits changed over the course of its lifetime, the organism would pass these traits along to its offspring.
        Lamarck’s theory has been proven wrong in both of its basic premises. First, an organism cannot fundamentally change its structure through use or disuse. A giraffe’s neck will not become longer or shorter by stretching for leaves. Second, modern genetics shows that it is impossible to pass on acquired traits; the traits that an organism can pass on are determined by the genotype of its sex cells, which does not change according to changes in phenotype.

      • David Brown

        Because it is based on use and disuse…..NOT selection of new traits via environmental pressure. In Darwinism…a species does not necessarily “disappear” as a result of evolving into a new species…..in fact a given population DOES NOT change into a new species.

        David Brown

  • David Brown
    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/biology/chapter8section1.rhtml

      It is impossible that you understand anything about the Heterotroph Hypothesis if you think it shows Genesis is true. It discusses evolution.

      • David Brown

        Jeff…check it out in original Hebrew. I taught Biology 33 years so I know a bit about the principles evolution…..it was an Orthodox Rabbi that pointed out this peculiarity to me back in 1969 when I was a grad student at CCNY. The hypothesis says heterotrophs evolved first, autotrophs second…not reflected in translations. (The Rabbi also showed me that in the original Hebrew…future events are recorded in the past tense and past events in the future tense. He assured me there was a reason……he said Einstein revealed that reason).

        David Brown

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Since I do nor read original Hebrew that is not possible. However, the Genesis account discribes how the universe and life was created during six days. That is not anywhere close to what the Heterotroph Hypothesis discusses.

          • david brown

            Hmmmm…why would a Scientist interpret Genesis the same way as a Fundamental Creationist? That’s the problem with Scientists .they got sucked in by Fundamentalists causing them to reject the wisdom available to them in Scripture. 6 days was enough for writers to handle..I doubt they could comprehend the 5 billion year planetissimal process and 13.5 billion year Big Bang. The Bible has a conversion factor….
            “A day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day” in addition to the taxonomy in the first 5 books on the past and future.

            Jeff..excellent on your point of evolution

            Blackhawk…..that’s the paradox….we need a beginning and an end….God doesn’t …because He always existed and always will as evidenced by the Law of Biogeneiss. Abiogeneis is an illusion. All life MUST come from pre-exisiting life. when some one asks you what came first..the chicken or the egg?…respond NEITHER..the TRUTH.

            AND TO MARK…….THE ONLY WAY TO REFUTE DARWINISM IS WITH PSEUDOSCIENCE. THE SEQUENCE IN GENESIS IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW IS PHYLOGENETIC. MECHANISM OF CREATION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD…..IT ACTUALLY SUPPORTS A CREATOR. IN FACT…IN ADDITION TO NATURAL SELECTION AS A SOURCE OF THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE…GOD ALSO USES RECOMBINANT DNA…IN FACT HE IS STILL USING IT.

            david brown [email protected]

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Even if you believe that god created life, that is still Abiogenesis. Therefore, it is not an illusion. It is simply how or where you want to claim it occurred.

          • Esther

            David: Jeff Dixon is an avowed atheist. He is no scientist. My problem with him: science is “not an illusion” he says and in the same breath adds: “it is simply how or where you want to claim it occurred.” This is a ruse… he suckers you in and then lays out his whole disdain for religion in a most insulting manner. Watch out. He means business when it comes to his atheism and he does not care what effects he has or who he destroys.

          • Esther

            A very serious limitation. You also need the Greek to measure up to Greg K. Beale, that is, if you want a high standard, Mr. Dixon. http://www.wts.edu/faculty/profiles/gbeale/gkbaandp.html

        • Seymour Kleerly

          If you taught biology, please explain how a VIRGIN can give birth. Thanks.

      • Esther

        The HH proves my point: chemstry and chemical dynamics is the basis of all life and its processes. Thanks for the final admission that I am right, Mr. Dixon..

    • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

      The Heterotroph Hypothesis is simply another term for spontaneous generation, an idea that has already been refuted. Life does not arise from non-living materials. Only an intelligent Creator with infinite power is capable of producing life. We do not need secular theories or hypotheses to declare that Genesis is true.

  • blackhawk132

    Why don’t they bury a bottle with absolute nothing in it and somehow require that every President give a speech on where and when it was buried.Go foward a thousand years and dig it up.What’s inside=Nothing. Re-bury it for another 1000 years and so forth untill a million years go by.What will they find? Nothing. Why ; Because nothing will ever make something. Fake science will and never can prove it’s redictulous theory.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Evolution does not address how the universe was created or how the first life was created. Those are the theories of the Big Bang and Abiogenesis. Evolution discusses how existing life changes over time.

      • blackhawk132

        And pray where did this life come from? Was it always here? Everything has a beginning and an end except maybe Obama’s term as Emperor ?

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Yes, life did start at one point. Science has not determined how that happened yet. However, the study of that is Abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution describes what happens to existing life. It does not make any difference the Theory of Evolution how it was created. It could have been by natural causes, the biblical god or Quezacotl, the “Feathered Snake” god of the Aztecs.

          • Tout

            DIXON and what you don’t know, you are not willing to learn. Never mind. We all will know, after death, Some refuse to learn before they die.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Well, if I am right, no, you will not learn after you die. You will simply be dead.

          • Esther

            “if you are right” indeed, which you are not.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You have no idea what is “right” or not.

          • Esther

            You hate me more b/c you know that I, indeed, do.

          • Esther

            Or the real God… you forgot that one

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, I did not forget

          • Esther

            You just did not mention Him, right Jeff?

      • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

        Jeff says: “Evolution does not address how the universe was created or how the first life was created”
        But if the first life did not originate by natural, but rather by supernatural means, then what reason would we have to believe that incredible complexity developed in organisms by entirely natural means, which evolution posits? If God created life (which He did) then we must accept the entire account of how He created it. We cannot be a ‘cafeteria Bible reader’ and simply pick and choose which parts we want, and leave the rest. Either it’s all true, or none of it is.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          The god which may or may not have created life does not have to be the biblical god version. Therefore, no, one does not have accept the biblical account of the creation of life, especially since the biblical account has been shown to be wrong. Plants were not created before the sun. Light did not exist before the sun.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            OK, let me rephrase that. You cannot be a ‘cafeteria theist’ and pick and choose certain theistic concepts but not others while claiming to be an atheist. And I’m curious: If you claim that the biblical account has been shown to be wrong, then which theistic book do you claim has the “right” account of the creation of life?

            Plants were indeed created before the sun, but not before there was light. A supernatural being with infinite power does not need a created object like a star to produce light. There was not only light, but also night and day before there were plants.:

            “3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

            4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

            5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

            …11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

            12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

            13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.”

            Genesis 1

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            As an atheist, I do not believe there are any gods. However, I can say it is possible that a god created the universe and the first cell in regards to discussing the theory of evolution. As such, I am not bound to agree with any particular version of god with that concept. Now, I also do not believe any god created the universe or the first cell. However, once again, the theory of evolution only discusses what happens to existing life. How that life got started is completely irrelevant to the theory.

            Yes, I know the bible says there was light before the sun, but that is just more nonsense. The light we see in this universe all comes from physical sources in the observable universe. There is no light coming from any other sources in this universe. To claim there was light before a sun is meaningless.

            And besides, light is not heat. If there were plants before there was a sun, the plants would freeze to death.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            If you believe it is possible that a god created the universe and the first cell, then you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic. Either you believe it was possible or you don’t.

            How life started IS relevant to evolution, because evolution claims to be an entirely natural process. Yet we do not see it occurring today. Nor do we see any life arising from nonlife. If we are going to say that the first life was created supernaturally, what would preclude ALL life from having been created supernaturally? It would be more logical than a god who creates an entire universe, devoid of any life, and then creates one single-cell organism to populate the planet. If such a god could create an entire universe with its complex design and order, he could most certainly create complex life forms as well.

            The light we see NOW comes from physical sources, but there was certainly no requirement that it had to during creation week, which was a supernatural occurrence. Trying to put a supernatural event into a naturalistic box based on what we observe today is nonsense. We know that the temperature was at least above freezing because Genesis 1 mentions water, not ice, before the plants were created:

            “1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

            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.

            6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

            7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

            8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

            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.”

            Genesis 1

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I already said I do not believe that a god created the universe or the first cell. However, that does not mean anything in terms of the theory of evolution. My point, which you keep sidestepping, is that it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the theory how life was created. It could be by natural causes, the bible god, a Deist god or Quetzalcoatl.

            It is the same as stating that germ theory or atomic theory cannot be accurate since they do not describe how germs or atoms were created.

            It is absurd to claim that the bible describes a supernatural event that has never been observed and then claim it is a reasonable concept. It is an unreasonable concept since we have never seen it. That the bible says it happened is no different than any other religious idea of how the universe was created,.There are hundreds of different creation myths. You have the same proof of your myth that all religions have. It is a written or oral tradition in a primitive or scientifically ignorant culture.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

            Basic type

            [edit]Creation from chaos

            Cheonjiwang Bonpuli (a Korean creation myth)

            Enûma Eliš (Babylonian creation myth)

            Greek cosmogonical myth

            Jamshid creation account

            Kumulipo

            Mandé creation myth

            Pangu

            Raven in Creation

            Serer creation myth

            Sumerian creation myth

            Tungusic creation myth

            Unkulunkulu

            Väinämöinen

            Viracocha

            [edit]Earth diver

            Ainu creation myth

            Cherokee creation myth

            Väinämöinen

            Yoruba creation myth

            [edit]Emergence

            Hopi creation

            Maya creation of the world myth

            Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)

            Zuni creation myth

            [edit]Ex nihilo (out of nothing)

            Debate between sheep and grain

            Barton cylinder

            Ancient Egyptian creation myths

            Genesis creation narrative (Christianity and Judaism)

            Islamic creation belief

            Kabezya-Mpungu

            Māori myths

            Mbombo

            Ngai

            Popol Vuh

            Rangi and Papa

            [edit]World Parent

            Coatlicue

            Enûma Eliš

            Greek cosmogonical myth

            Heliopolis creation myth

            Hiranyagarbha creation

            Kumulipo

            Rangi and Papa

            Völuspá

            [edit]Regional

            [edit]African

            Ancient Egyptian creation myths

            Fon creation myth

            Kaang creation story (Bushmen)

            Kintu myth (Bugandan)

            Mandé creation myth

            Mbombo (Kuba, Bakuba or Bushongo/Boshongo)

            Ngai (Kamba, Kikuyu and Maasai )

            Serer creation myth (cosmogony of the Serer people of Senegal, the Gambia and Mauritania)

            Unkulunkulu (Zulu)

            Yoruba creation

            [edit]American

            [edit]Arctic American

            [edit]Mesoamerican

            Coatlicue (Aztec)

            Maya creation of the world myth

            Popol Vuh (Quiché Mayan)

            [edit]Mid North American

            Anishinaabeg creation stories

            Cherokee creation myth

            Choctaw creation

            Creek creation

            Hopi creation

            Kuterastan (Plains Apache)

            Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)

            Raven in Creation (Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian)

            Zuni creation myth

            [edit]South American

            Legend of Trentren Vilu and Caicai Vilu (Chilean)

            Viracocha (Incan)

            [edit]Asian

            [edit]Central Asian

            Mongolian creation myth

            Tungusic creation myth

            [edit]East Asian

            Ainu creation myth (Japan)

            Au Co (Vietnamese)

            Chinese creation myth

            Cheonjiwang Bonpuli (Korean)

            Dangun creation myth (Korean)

            Japanese creation myth

            Nüwa (Chinese)

            Pangu (Chinese)

            Samseonghyeol legend (Korean)

            [edit]South Asian

            Hiranyagarbha creation (India)

            ajativada (India)

            Mimamsa eternalism (India)

            samkhya-yoga theory (India)

            nyaya-vaisheshika atomic theory (India)

            lokayat-charvaka theory (India)

            sasvatvada (India)

            buddhism theory (India)

            Jainism and non-creationism (India)

            folk hindu creation myth (India)

            [edit]Southeast Asian

            [edit]European

            Greek cosmogonical myth

            Pelasgian creation myth (Greek)

            Väinämöinen (Finnish)

            Völuspá (Norse)

            [edit]Middle Eastern

            Debate between sheep and grain

            Enûma Eliš (Babylonian)

            Genesis creation narrative (Hebrew)

            Islamic creation belief (Arabic)

            Mashya and Mashyana (Persian)

            Sumerian creation myth

            [edit]Pacific Islander/Oceanic

            Kumulipo (Hawaiian)

            Māori myths

            Rangi and Papa (Māori)

            Sureq Galigo (Buginese)

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            “As an atheist, I do not believe there are any gods. However, I can say it is possible that a god created the universe and the first cell in regards to discussing the theory of evolution.” – Jeff Dixon

            If you are even suggesting that it is possible, you are not an atheist. An atheist is certain there is no god.

            If creation was a supernatural event, a possibility to which you are leaving the door open for, then it is certainly possible that evolution never happened. It is not found in the Bible nor any other major religion’s texts that I know of. If the first life form were created by God, and then the plan was to allow evolution to take over, isn’t it reasonable to assume that it would be mentioned in at least a handful of them?

            Arguing against the theory of evolution based on the origins argument is different than making any statement about germ theory or atomic theory. Neither of those two theories involves origins, whereas evolution has everything to do with origins. Whether germs were created or evolved has no effect on germ theory itself, but whether organisms evolved or were created certainly does. If organisms were all created in their present form, then that would automatically exclude the theory of evolution, but not germ theory.

            Of course creation has “never been observed”. Who would have been their to observe it? That is a silly argument. Man had not even been created yet.

            The fact that there is such a wide-spread belief in a supernatural creation across so many different cultures and religions is a pretty good indication that something like that did indeed happen, although the historical facts have probably been corrupted in most non-Christian religions. Same thing with the Flood–there is a wide-spread belief that the earth was once covered with water, which it was. The recounting of such a calamitous event surely would have passed down through the generations, even though again the details have been twisted in the versions outside of the historically accurate biblical account. The fact that most versions of these two events are historically inaccurate does not lead to the conclusion that the events did not occur.

            The fact is, there is no viable explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it through entirely natural processes. The Laws of science and logic preclude such an occurrence, as they do for the idea of an eternal universe. The only reasonable, logical explanation is that an intelligent being who is both eternal and all powerful created everything we see. No other explanation fits the evidence.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Key says: “If you are even suggesting that it is possible, you are not an atheist. An atheist is certain there is no god”

            Then atheism is another topic you do not understand.

            Key says: “Arguing against the theory of evolution based on the origins argument is different than making any statement about germ theory or atomic theory. Neither of those two theories involves origins.”

            Evolution also does not discuss origins. Once again, you do not understand the topic.

            Key says: Of course creation has “never been observed”. Who would have been their to observe it? That is a silly argument. Man had not even been created yet.

            Who would have observed dinosaurs turning into birds? Humans had not yet evolved.

            There is a completely viable explanation for the existence of the universe without a god. It simply requires that one take off their god blinders and accept what the laws of science have shown us.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uh m] Show IPA

            noun

            1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

            2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or being

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

            “Agnosticism is the philosophical or religious view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly claims regarding the existence of God, gods, deities, ultimate reality or afterlife — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the subjective nature of experience.

            Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, posit that while certainty may be possible for some, they personally have not come into possession of this knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.”

            http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Agnosticism

            Atheism: Believes there is no god

            Agnosticism: Believes that the existence of God is unknowable

            Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Which are you?

            Evolution may not discuss origins, but if the truth of origins is that God created everything in its finished form then that invalidates evolution. There are only three possibilities: 1) Life arose by entirely natural means as a one-celled organism; 2) God created life as a single cell organism; or 3) God created everything in a highly complex, finished form. Possibility #3 automatically invalidates evolution, while all three possibilities do not invalidate germ theory.

            No one would have observed dinosaurs turning into birds, because it never happened. The same cannot be said about creation. Even though Adam did not observe the creation, he and Eve were able to talk to and interact with the Creator:

            “15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

            16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

            17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

            18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

            19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

            20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

            21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;”

            Genesis 2

            “8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

            9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

            10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

            11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

            12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

            13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”

            Genesis 3

            Any explanation for the existence of the universe without a god must necessarily violate known Laws of science and violates elementary principles of logic. It is illogical for something to create itself, and violates the Laws of Conservation of Matter (Mass) and Energy. An eternal universe violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy).

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am repeating this since I realized I posted the original in the wrong place.

            There is more than one version of Atheism. Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.

            Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnosticatheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

            Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to asexplicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.

            There are no historical facts of creation or the flood. Primitive people make up stories because they had no idea about the world they lived in. That is show that creation is likely, only that primitive people shared common misunderstandings.

            You can accept that a god does not require a creator, yet draw the line that the universe also does not need a creator. However there is evidence the universe exists (we see it everyday) and no evidence that a god exists (which no one sees)

            You keep misusing the laws of science in your attempt to say a natural universe is impossible. However, that merely shows your misunderstanding of the laws, not that they actually show what you want them to show.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            OK, I’ll admit I did not know there were variations of atheism. It still sounds a little fuzzy on the distinctions, but I gather then that you personally are leaving open the possibility that there is a god.

            There are historical facts surrounding the creation and the Flood. Both are detailed with historical accuracy in the Bible. The Bible is the most widely read book of all time, by far, and has the greatest number of manuscript copies that verify its reliability, by far, of any ancient writing. So certainly it must have some credibility, despite your statements to the contrary.

            There is no such thing as “primitive people”. That is an evolutionary myth. Man has always been fully human. But if you are simply referring to early cultures, then yes, I would agree that those outside of the Christian/biblical influence have taken events that are true and did happen, namely, the creation and the Flood, and created stories around them. The fact that many of the details surrounding their stories are conflicting shows they either did not understand the historical basis of the events, or that the facts became obscured and altered as time went on. Just like the old REO Speedwagon song, “the tales grow taller on down the line”

            Yes, there is evidence that a universe exists, and the very fact that it does is evidence that God exists as well. Since something exists rather than nothing, we can conclude that something has to be eternal. But the universe itself cannot be eternal, or else the amount of useful energy it contains would be zero. Yet that is not what we observe.

            So something else must be eternal, and the only logical conclusion is that there must be a transcendent being who is not only eternal, but also possesses the power to create an entire universe out of nothing. No other explanation fits the evidence. It would be equally illogical to assume the universe created itself, because mass and energy can be neither created nor destroyed (by natural means).

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            While I leave it open that there is a possibility there is a god, I also highly doubt there is one. I also completely discount the idea of the biblical god. What I have attempted to explain, obviously with little success, is that the theory of evolution does not care how life started. Evolution is the same theory if it started by natural means or supernatural means. You are the one who is trying to claim that evolution must rely on a naturalistic explanation, and sorry, no it does not. My personal view or yours is irrelevant

            There are myths associated with the creation and flood story, but they are not based on anything historical or more importantly, factual.

            Of course there are primitive people. People who lived 2,000 years ago are primitive compared to our current development. I suspect you mean earlier versions of humans, and sorry you are wrong about that as well. There is a well documented history of the progression of how man developed over time into our current species.

            It is not the logical conclusion that an eternal and transcendent being must be at the basis of the universe. That is what you what to believe, not what any evidence shows us.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Whether one believes life began by divine creation or some other way, does not alter the fact that evolution claims to operate as an entirely natural process. I think we can agree on that point. Yet no reasonable explanation is offered as to where the vast quantities of entirely new genetic information came from that would be required to produce the millions of different organisms we observe today.

            The only way evolution could possible be true would be if the so-called ‘first single-cell organism’ that supposedly started the evolutionary process contained the entire set of genetic information for all the organisms we observe worldwide today. That would be quite a feat considering how vastly different plants and animals are, and even how different two animals, such as a fish and a gorilla are. It would have had to have been an extremely bizarre ‘cell’ indeed.

            But going back a step again, if evolutionists wish to be honest, they will have to admit that there is no known means of producing life from non-living materials. That leaves only two possibility–divine creation of a single cell, or divine creation of all life forms. But then they claim that evolution must be a natural process, even though they tacitly admit that supernatural intervention was necessary to create life by the process of elimination.

            So the question is, why are we to assume a natural process ‘evolved’ higher life forms when we already have irrefutable evidence that supernatural intervention must have been necessary for either of the two remaining scenarios? It would therefore be more logical to conclude that organisms with incredibly complex encoded information originated by supernatural means, since we do not observe information arising by chance, and we already know from the process of elimination that life had to originate by divine means. That is why the question of origins IS germane to the discussion of evolution.

            All of the so-called ‘primitive men’ that I am aware of have been identified as either apes in some cases, or fully human in others. Neanderthal, for example, falls within the range of human variability

            “A Neanderthal brain volume equals or exceeds modern human dimensions (Deacon, 1994), ranging from about 1200_1750 ml, and thus on the average about 100 ml larger than modern humans (Stringer and Gamble, 1993). Holloway (1985: 320) has stated “I believe the Neanderthal brain was fully Homo, with no essential differences in its organization compared to our own.”

            Although there is no direct correlation between brain size and intelligence, Neanderthal brain volume certainly does not support views that argue for an evolutionary expansion of “Hominid” brains.

            Neanderthal anatomy is essentially human in scope, with the same number of bones as humans, which function in the same manner (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). However, there are minor differences in robusticity (thickness and strength). These differences are trivial and can be found on an individual basis in modern living populations (Lewin, 1998). Although there is no formal agreement of which physical characteristics are diagnostic of Neanderthal morphology, a suite of traits have been used to distinguish Neanderthal morphology. Cranial traits are listed in the table below.

            Still one may wonder why the entire suite of traits are not found in modern populations, but consider that Neanderthals typically lived in extremely cold climate areas, genetically isolated by a post-flood ice age. That would have directly affected their anatomy and physiology (Stringer and Gamble, 1993).”

            http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/

            Since there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that would not violate known Laws of mass and energy, we must assume, once again, based on the process of elimination, that the universe had a supernatural beginning.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I completely accept that life started by naturalistic means. However, what I keep stating and what you keep not understanding is that the theory of evolution does not care how life started. The theory describes what happens to life AFTER it is formed.

            I do not care how many times you say the theory requires that life started only from naturalistic means. You simply keep being wrong.

            What I think happened and what the theory needs are two different things.

            Besides, the creation of life by a god IS abiogenesis. Therefore, if the theory needs abiogenesis, it has it regardless of how life was created.

            That you believe that the first cell must have contained all the genetic information simply shows that you have no idea what the theory of evolution says on the issue.

            Actually, there is evidence that life came from lifelessness. All the matter in your body came from suns that exploded billions of years before you existed. That is life from lifelessness. The rest we are working out.

            You would be the same person who claims it is impossible for man to split the atom or devise a way to travel to the moon. You are the same person who would say that it is impossible to transplant a heart. It seemed impossible until we determined how to do it.

            Perhaps Neanderthals were smarter.So what? Dinosaurs were faster and better hunters. That did not prevent them from dying out. Where is it shown that being smarter is the only issue in determining who survives?

            There is a complete naturalistic way for the universe to exist. You are simply stating nonsense when you claim otherwise.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            You “completely accept that life started by naturalistic means” yet there isn’t the slightest evidence that it is possible. If starting life were a naturalistic process, it should be able to be duplicated in the lab today, but there has never been anything of the sort accomplished. The Miller-Urey experiments, for example, produced amino acids, but they were right-handed rather than left-handed as living cells contain, plus amino acids are only building blocks, not life.

            I didn’t say the theory of evolution ‘required” there to be a naturalistic origin for life. I said that since there is no evidence that life began by natural processes, which indicates it had supernatural origins, it would be more logical to accept that the complex genetic information we find in organisms today came from the same supernatural origin than to accept that this infinitely powerful creator would only create a ‘simple’ one-celled organism and allow natural processes to create vast quantities of new genetic information (something that we never see at present).

            Creation of life by God is indeed abiogenesis, but it was certainly not a naturally-occurring event. It was a one-time supernatural event that is not repeatable today, nor will it ever.

            The reason I say that the first cell must have contained all the genetic information is because there is no known mechanism for producing vast quantities of entirely new genetic information, which would have to be possible if evolution were true.

            While it is true that all of the matter in our bodies is composed of elements found on earth (not from suns that exploded billions of years before I existed), it does not follow that we can simply arrange those elements in the same pattern and produce life. No, there is another Law that precludes that possibility:

            “The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, byreproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2] This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for “all life [is] from life.” A related statement is Omnis cellula e cellula, “all cells [are] from cells;” this observation is one of the central statements of cell theory.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

            Splitting the atom, traveling to the moon, or transplanting a heart are all excellent examples of operational science, i.e. science that is based on observation and experiment in the present. Creating life from non-living materials not only violates the Law of Biogenesis, it has also never been observed.

            My point in showing the characteristics of Neanderthal was to indicate that they were well within the range of what we would consider human even though some have tried to claim they were sub-human ‘ancestors’ of modern man.

            I know of no naturalistic means of origins for the universe that would not contradict basic Laws of Science. Certain theories have been proposed, but they always run afoul of the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy, or else they involve the concept of infinite regress..

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            There is more than one version of Atheism. Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.

            Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnosticatheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

            Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to asexplicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.

            There are no historical facts of creation or the flood. Primitive people make up stories because they had no idea about the world they lived in. That is show that creation is likely, only that primitive people shared common misunderstandings.

            You can accept that a god does not require a creator, yet draw the line that the universe also does not need a creator. However there is evidence the universe exists (we see it everyday) and no evidence that a god exists (which no one sees)

            You keep misusing the laws of science in your attempt to say a natural universe is impossible. However, that merely shows your misunderstanding of the laws, not that they actually show what you want them to show.

          • Esther

            You forgot to add your perversion: The Almighty Singularity

          • Esther

            Jeff is always careful to prevent personal conundrums. Yet permits no such complexities for others. Case in point: He does not acknowledge that it is reasonable that Mormons individually believe only what they personally see as true. He believes Mormons must believe every anti-mormon statement he can find on the web. I have explained that simple concept to him many times… He does not allow it.

          • Esther

            Your problem is you don’t know, and not only that, you display a fanatic attachment to The Almighty Singularity. So you have your “god.”

  • Mark

    There is no reasoned argument left to support evolution in any aspect of the theory, no matter what the believers in the doctrine would like you to believe, it masks itself in the name of science, its total falsehood and probably the biggest scam ever invented, there is not a grain of evidence that has ever been put forth for a hundred and forty years to support the theory, only to say something evolved from this to that and that is not science. Please read the link, if anyone believes in this inane idea after this reasoning and with out a commitment to the theory, even with that commitment they still are liars or seriously misled deceiving themselves and the masses that believe the propaganda. This puts the idea where it belongs, a total and utter falsehood which should only be left in the annals of fiction and myth. Please read and be honest with yourself. The theory of macro evolution is dead and buried, it is left only in the imaginations of those that promote the false teaching which should have no basis in science at all. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
    http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-gods-kingdom/

    • Tout

      MARK Thanks. You do very well.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Religion is actually the biggest scam ever invented. Science is, on the other hand, the best way that mankind has ever developed to explain the universe. That you dismiss it out of hand is a reflection of your inability to understand the science behind the theory.

      • Esther

        I fail to see why you are encouraged to rage on as though your “scams” are right. The science you support is hardly a solid foundation of knowledge but is devised as system for collegial purposes. For you thusly, science is a religion, carved in stone, hardly what it is meant to be.

      • Wayne

        Science has not yet detailed any accurate explanation of how the universe or life were formed. Hypothesis is all that is offered and then unlimited change to the hypothesis to try to fit it into new found points that they must “work around”. It is good to try to understand, but it is foolish to mock God in your human understanding. God created Man, then Man created their own Gods, some through religion, others through science.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          That we understand anything about the universe can be attributed to science. We have learned more about the universe in the last 200 years than in the last 5,000. Religion had its chance to offer mankind knowledge and it failed dramatically.

  • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

    The Heterotroph Hypothesis is simply another term for spontaneous generation, an idea that has already been refuted. Life does not arise from non-living materials. Only an intelligent Creator with infinite power is capable of producing life.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Actually, if you are referring to Pasteur, all he showed is that spontaneous generation from non-living material cannot occur. However abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Where spontaneous generation is modern organisms forming from non-living material modern concepts of abiogenesis involve modern concepts of abiogenesis involves chemical reactions in the early earth that eventually produced the first living organisms. The first life wouldn’t be nearly as complex as even the simplest modern cell, in fact the most accepted abiogenesis hypothesis is the RNA World hypothesis which states that the first life was simple self replicating RNA molecules.

      The Miller–Urey experiment showed it is possible to create the basic building blocks of life from chemical reactions.
      The study of abiogenesis is still in its infancy. While we know it is possible how it happened is still unknown. However, that simply means that more investigation is needed on this issue.

      • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

        Technically you are correct. But in both cases, the premise is that life arose from nonliving materials.

        The Miller-Urey experiments only produced right-handed amino acids. Living cells have left-handed amino acids. And manipulation of chemicals under controlled conditions in a lab is hardly equivalent to abiogenesis.

        “What if a scientist could make a living organism by combining chemicals in a lab? It would only prove that intelligent actions can make life—not that life arose spontaneously billions of years ago. There has never been an instance where information has been shown to arise from matter. Matter can form complex patterns, such as crystals, but there is no information contained in such patterns. In order for life to continue and organisms to replicate, information must be present to pass on to offspring.

        The ultimate question that evolution must be able to answer is, “How did the information seen in living things arise from matter alone?” When we think of information in biology, we are mainly talking about DNA and RNA. DNA and RNA use information that is present in a code to send and receive messages that are intended to produce proteins and continue the existence of the species. We can define information as follows:

        Information: an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.”

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-life

        “Miller’s experiment did produce the amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed. The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature.

        One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by Peltzer who worked with Miller. As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars in the Maillard reaction, forming a brown tar around Miller’s apparatus. Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product.

        Wrong forms of amino acid

        But there is a more fundamental problem with this scenario which can easily be overlooked. Amino acids, like all chemicals, are three-dimensional structures. The arrangement of the central carbon atom is tetrahedral (figure 2). In the diagram you will see two versions of this. Unless you are used to studying these sorts of arrangements, you will think they are the same; it would seem that you could just rotate one to get the other. This is not, in fact, the case. We compare them to our hands: right-handed and left-handed. A left-handed glove will not fit on a right hand, for example.

        Does this matter? The answer is a very loud “Yes!”. In nature, we only have left-handed (levo) amino acids. (Glycine mentioned above is an exception; it does not have two forms – make a model and you will see why!). Miller’s experiment gives a mixture of both forms but nature requires the levo form only. Again, does it matter? Functional proteins cannot contain more than traces of right handed (dextro) amino acids. Right-handed forms (dextro) can have very different, even fatal, effects in some circumstances.

        It is not a simple process to separate them and there is no natural system that can do so. In fact, L-amino acids have a tendency with age to undergo a chemical inversion to the D-form. This is called racemization. (This again gives a headache to the evolutionists: if amino acids could have been synthesised in a pure L-form, within a short time they would have racemized to give a 50:50 mixture of the two forms!). This racemization occurs in nature and can cause severe problems. For example, teeth and eye proteins racemize with age and so affect their health; Alzheimer’s disease also may be caused by racemization of a protein.”

        http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/51.html

        The RNA World hypothesis is also fraught with many problems:

        http://www.molecularstation.com/forum/science-religion-forum/3342-rna-world-hypothesis.html

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Technically, I am always correct, for I always discuss what has been found to be correct from a scientific viewpoint.

          Key says: “The Miller-Urey experiments only produced right-handed amino acids. Living cells have left-handed amino acids. And manipulation of chemicals under controlled conditions in a lab is hardly equivalent to abiogenesis.”

          If it can be shown to occur in the lab, then it is possible it could occur outside of the lab. Creationists insist that Evolution cannot be true. If what evolution says happens can be shown to occur in a lab, there is nothing that prevents it from occurring naturally.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            ” If what evolution says happens can be shown to occur in a lab, there is nothing that prevents it from occurring naturally.”

            Problem is, it has never been, nor ever will be shown to occur in the lab. Fruit flies, for example, have been bred in the lab since the late 1800′s, yet even with their extremely high mutation rate, nothing but fruit flies has ever been produced.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.

            There are about 3,000 described species of fruit flies (family Drosophilidae; Wheeler 1987). “Still fruit flies” covers a wide range.

            Fruit flies do not remain the same species of fruit flies. Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of contrasting microenvironments within a canyon (Korol et al. 2000). We would not expect to see much greater divergence in historical times.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Biological classification, whereby a ‘tree’ is drawn that supposedly shows the evolutionary descent of creatures, exists only in the mind of evolutionists. Similarity does not necessitate descent, but rather, a common Creator used similar designs in similar creatures.

            The fact remains, that millions upon millions of generations of fruit flies that have been bred in the laboratory have failed to produce anything other than fruit flies. You can argue that there are different species, which is true, but for evolution to be true, there would have to be an upward mobility above the species level to an entirely new form, which we do not observe. There is a genetic limit as to how much variety can be produced within any given kind of creature, and when that limit is reached, no further species or sub-species are possible. Everything reproduces after its kind.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It exists in the minds of evolutionists because it accurately describes what we see in the natural world.

            A species often remains the same, such as sharks. Evolution is a not a process, but a journey.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            What we see are similar creatures, but similarity does not tell us anything about origins. From a purely logical standpoint, it is just as likely that similarity is the result of a common creator as it would be of common descent.

            If sharks remain sharks, then that one example or other similar examples cannot be used as proof of evolution. It neither proves it nor disproves it.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, actually it does not show a common creator. Not when the lifeforms only all show similarity in geographic location, all around the world.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Similarity by geographic location indicates adaptation (natural selection), or else is a result of migration of certain organisms to a climate that best fits their characteristics. We would not expect to find polar bears, for example, at the equator (at sea level) because they do not thrive in warm climates. They were designed to thrive in cold climates, and either migrated there after the flood, or else the ordinary bear population at the South Pole developed the unique characteristics of polar bears through natural selection as the climate changed.

          • Esther

            …You are usually wrong. I am sure you are used to that concept by now Gal 6:7 – Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

          • Esther

            .You are usually wrong. I am sure you are used to that concept by now Gal 6:7 – Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

        • Esther

          Thanks for these comments, Key.

ABOUT US | MEDIA KIT | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY COPYRIGHT © 2014. CREATIONREVOLUTION.COM IS A MEMBER OF Liberty Alliance. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Proudly built by WPDevelopers