Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,194 members, 7,780,331 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 12:35 PM

Problems with Evolutionary Theory - Religion (8) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Problems with Evolutionary Theory (12685 Views)

Evolutionary Theory: A Cause Of Racism. / Extraordinary Feat By Lizard Suggests The Species Is In Evolutionary Transition / Coronavirus And 5G: Pastor Matthew Ashimolowo Addresses Conspiracy Theory (Video (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 9:58pm On Nov 19, 2016
raphieMontella:
been around...observing...
I don even tire to argue, since last week fa.
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 12:27am On Nov 20, 2016
It is untrue for anyone to claim that no true scientist reject evolution
The following are list of those who accept creation and reject evolution.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Wichita State University .
Dr E . Theo Agard , Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Genetics
Dr John Ashton, Chemistry, Food technology
Dr Steve Austin , Geology
Dr S .E . Aw, Biochemistry
Dr Geoff Barnard , Immunology
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiology
Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics , Professor of Biology and Chemistry , Cedarville University
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Élizabeth Beauchesne, Biomedical Sciences .
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychology
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof . Vladimir Betina , Microbiology , Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Markus Blietz , Astrophysicist
Dr Raymond G . Bohlin , Biology
Dr Andrew Bosanquet , Biology , Microbiology
Dr Edward A . Boudreaux , Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineering
Dr Bernard Brandstater , Anesthesiology
Prof . Stuart Burgess , Engineering and Biomimetics , Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department , Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK )
Prof . Linn E . Carothers , Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Ben Carson , Professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University . He has 51 honorary doctorates , including from Yale and Columbia Universities.
Dr Robert W . Carter , Marine Biology
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology (read his
story)
Prof . Sung-Do Cha , Physics
Dr Eugene F . Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Ainsley Chalmers, Biochemist, medical researcher
Dr Choong -Kuk Chang , Genetic Engineering
Prof . Jeun-Sik Chang , Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics , Assistant Professor of Physics , Cedarville University
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemistry
Prof . Chung -Il Cho , Biology Education
Dr John M . Cimbala , Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Paleontology
Dr Bob Compton , DVM, PhD
Dr Ken Cumming , Biology
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer , Analytical Chemistry
Dr Raymond V . Damadian , M . D. , Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemistry
Dr Nancy M . Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson , Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean , Biological Chemistry
Prof . Stephen W . Deckard , Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A . DeWitt, Biology , Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics
Dr Geoff Downes , Plant Physiology
Dr Ted Driggers , Operations research
Robert H . Eckel, Medical Research ( more than 80 research papers)
Dr André Eggen , Genetics
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science , Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Dr Dudley Eirich, Molecular biologist
Prof . Dennis L . Englin , Professor of Geophysics
Prof . Danny Faulkner , Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry , Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof . Carl B . Fliermans , Professor of Biology
Prof . Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof . Robert H . Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Kenneth W . Funk, Organic Chemistry; biologically active peptide synthesis .
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Roger G . Gallop , P .G ., Geology
Dr Robert Gentry, Physics
Dr Maciej Giertych , Genetics
Dr Werner Gitt , Information Science
Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science , Professor of Physics , Cedarville University
Dr D .B . Gower , Biochemistry
Dr Stephen Grocott , Industrial Chemistry
Dr Donald Hamann , Food Science
Dr Barry Harker, Philosophy
Dr Charles W . Harrison , Applied Physics , Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett , Physics and Cosmology
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel , Botanist, Silviculture, Ecophysiology
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Science
Dr Steven Hayes , Nuclear Science
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor , Botany
Dr Larry Helmick , Organic Chemistry , Professor of Chemistry , Cedarville University
Dr Harold R. Henry , Engineering
Dr Dewey Hodges, Professor of Aerospace Engineering
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomology
Dr Jonathan Henry , Chemical Engineering, Astronomy
Dr Robert A. Herrmann , Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology
Dr Ed Holroyd, III , Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken , Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe , Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropology
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physics
Dr James A. Huggins , Professor and Chair , Department of Biology
Dr G . Charles Jackson, Science Education
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström , Molecular Biology
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Raymond Jones , Agricultural Science
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences , Logic , Formal Logic
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biology
Prof . Gi-Tai Kim , Biology
Prof . Harriet Kim , Biochemistry
Prof . Jong-Bai Kim , Biochemistry
Prof . Jung-Han Kim , Biochemistry
Prof . Jung-Wook Kim , Environmental Science
Prof . Kyoung-Rai Kim , Analytical Chemistry
Prof . Kyoung-Tai Kim , Genetic Engineering
Prof . Young -Gil Kim , Materials Science
Prof . Young In Kim , Engineering
Dr David King, Astronomy.
Dr John W . Klotz , Biology
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Felix Konotey -Ahulu , Physician , leading expert on
sickle -cell anemia
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M .D ., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K .G . Kramer , Biochemistry
Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biology researcher and lecturer
Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology , Cedarville University
Prof . Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof . Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr Barry Lawrence , Nuclear Engineering
Dr Matti Leisola, Biochemistry ( esp. of enzymes ), D .Sc. in biotechnology, Dean, Faculty of Chemical and Materials Sciences, Aalta University , Finland
Dr John G . Leslie , biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
Prof . Lane P . Lester , Biology, Genetics
Dr Jean Lightner , Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr Peter Line , Neuroscience
Dr Jason Lisle , Astrophysics
Dr Raúl E López, Meteorology
Dr Alan Love, Chemistry
Dr Gloria Luciani -Torres, Molecular Oncology Researcher (Cancer Biology )
Dr Heinz Lycklama , Nuclear physics and Information Technology
Dr Ian Macreadie , Molecular Biology and Microbiology
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biology
Dr George Marshall, Opthalmology researcher
Dr James Mason, Nuclear physics
Dr Ralph Matthews , Radiation Chemistry
Dr Mark McClain , Inorganic Chemistry , Associate Professor of Chemistry , Cedarville University
Dr John McEwan , Organic Chemistry
Prof . Andy McIntosh , Combustion theory , aerodynamics
Dr David Menton , Anatomy
Dr Angela Meyer , Plant Physiology
Dr John Meyer , Physiology
Dr Victor Meyer , Entomology, environmental science
Dr Douglas Miller , Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Robert T. Mitchell , Internal Medicine (specialist)
Dr Colin W . Mitchell, Geography
Dr Gina Mohammed, Plant physiology
Dr John N . Moore , Science Education
Dr John D . Morris, Geology
Dr Len Morris, Physiology
Dr Graeme Mortimer , Geology
Dr Stanley A . Mumma , Architectural Engineering
Prof . Hee -Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman , Biomedical science
Dr David Oderberg, Philosophy
Professor Douglas Oliver , Professor of Biology
Prof . John Oller, Linguistics
Prof . Chris D . Osborne , Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr Charles Pallaghy , Botany
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biology , Cognate in Geology (Paleontology )
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H . Poirier, Aeronautics , Electronics
Dr Georgia Purdom , Molecular Genetics
Dr Graeme Quick , Engineering, former Principle Research Scientist with CSIRO (Australia)
Dr Dan Reynolds , Organic Chemistry
Dr Chad Rodekohr, Engineering, Physics
Dr Jung -Goo Roe , Biology
Dr David Rodda , PhD , Population Genetics
Dr David Rosevear , Chemistry
Dr Marcus Ross, Paleontology
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Craig Russell, Soil science , plant nutrition , ecology
Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy
Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics
Dr Jonathan D . Sarfati, Physical chemistry / spectroscopy
Dr Alicia ( Lisa ) Schaffner , Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Joachim Scheven Paleontology
Dr Ian Scott , Education
Dr Saami Shaibani , Forensic Physics
Dr Young - Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof . Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geology / karstology
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineering
Dr Horace D . (‘ Skip’) Skipper, Professor Emeritus Soil microbiology , College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences, Clemson University , SC , USA
Dr E . Norbert Smith , Zoology
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geology
Prof . Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof . James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof . Brian Stone , Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry , Professor of Biology , Cedarville University
Dr Greg Tate, Plant Pathology
Dr Stephen Taylor , Electrical Engineering
Dr Larry Thaete, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Pathobiology
Dr Ker C . Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter , Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry /Biochemistry
Dr S .H . ‘Wally ’ Tow ( Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore
Dr Royal Truman , Organic Chemistry
Dr Brandon van der Ventel , Nuclear scientist
Dr Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D . and Professor Emeritus in Botany, North Carolina State University
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof . Walter Veith, Zoology
Dr Joachim Vetter , Biology
Dr Erich Vorpagel, Biochemistry , Molecular Biology; computational protein function .
Dr Tas Walker , Mechanical Engineering and Geology
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Keith Wanser , Physics
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Near- East History (also has B .Sc. in Zoology )
Dr Carl Werner, Biologist
Dr A .J . Monty White , Chemistry /Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geology /Paleontology
Dr Kurt Wise, Paleontology
Dr Bryant Wood, Archaeology
Prof . Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas ( Tong Y .) Yi , Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick -Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung -Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young , Chemistry and Materials Science
Prof . Keun Bae Yu , Geography
Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics
Dr Henry Zuill , Biology
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 12:35am On Nov 20, 2016
Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?
by Jerry Bergman
The standard definition of ‘vestigial ’ is an organ that once was useful in an animal’ s evolutionary past, but that now is useless or very close to useless. The list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999. Evidently to salvage this once -critical support for evolution, a new revisionistic definition of a vestigial structure is now sometimes used. This definition involves the idea that a vestigial organ is any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary . This definition is problematic because it is vague and would allow almost every structure in humans to be labelled as vestigial .
Classical definition of vestigial
The question , ‘Do any vestigial organs exist in humans ?’ (or any other life form for that matter) , first requires a definition of ‘vestigial ’. The most common definition of a vestigial organ throughout the last century was similar to the following: ‘ Living creatures, including man, are virtual museums of structures that have no useful function but which represent the remains of organs that once had some use ( emphasis mine) .’1 The authoritative reference The Evolution of Life 2 defines a vestigial organ as one ‘which has lost its function in the course of evolution , and is usually much reduced in size ’.
The standard anatomy authorities usually define a vestigial organ as referring to a once- useful organ that now is useless or very close to useless . Dorland ’s Dictionary defines the term vestigial as ‘a vestige, trace or relic’ , and defines the term as ‘ the remnant of a structure which functioned in a previous stage of a species [evolution]’ .3 Churchill ’s Dictionary defines vestigial as an organ that has ‘no obvious function ’, and notes that the word vestigial derives from the Latin
vestigium, ‘meaning footprint , imprint, track , trace ’.4 A standard dictionary of biology defines the word vestigial as follows :
The appendix
Once claimed by evolutionists as a vestigial organ , the appendix has many known functions.
‘An organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms . Examples include the wings of flightless birds, the limb girdles of snakes, the appendix and the ear muscles of humans , and the scale leaves of parasitic flowering plants . The presence of vestigial organs is thought to indicate that the ancestors of the organism possessed fully functioning organs … .’ 5
Asimov 1 provides two examples of a vestigial organ : (1 ) the tiny bones posterior to the sacrum called the coccyx (which Asimov claims were ‘once meant for a tail ’); and (2 ) the small muscles around the ears (which Asimov claims are ‘unworkable muscles once meant to move the ears’). As we will see , these conclusions are not based on empirical evidence but instead on evolutionary assumptions .
The above definitions of vestigial organs all focus on organs that once had an important function in an animal’s evolutionary past, but have virtually no function in the animal today. The following example is typical of how the vestigial organ argument was used in textbooks in the past as a ‘proof’ of evolution:
‘Useless Organs Prove Evolution. Science has piled up still further evidence for its case. It has found a number of useless organs among many animals . They have no apparent function and must therefore be a vestige of a once useful part of the body. A long time back these vestigial organs must have been important ; now they are just reminders of our common ancestry. One example is the vermiform appendix which not only is utterly useless in human beings but which often causes great distress [emphasis in original ].’6
This definition still is commonly used . One of the most popular modern life science textbook writers defined ‘vestigial ’ as follows:
‘Evolution is not a perfect process . As environmental changes select against certain structures, others are retained , sometimes persisting even if they are not used. A structure that seems to have no function in one species , yet is homologous to a functional organ in another species, is termed vestigial . Darwin compared vestigial organs to silent letters in a word —they are not pronounced, but they offer clues to the word ’s origin. ’7
In the past, evolutionists claimed that there were approximately 180 vestigial organs in humans , including the appendix, the tonsils, the pineal gland and the thymus . Now we know that :
The appendix is part of the immune system , strategically located at the entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high bacterial content .
The tonsils have a similar function in the entrance to the pharynx .8
The pineal gland secretes malatonin which is a hormone that regulates the circadian rhythm and has other functions.
The thymus is part of the immune system, related to T -cells . HIV attacks T -cells, rendering them ineffective and for this reason is always eventually fatal.
The number of organs that once were believed to be functional in the evolutionary past of humans but are non -functional today has been steadily reduced as the fields of anatomy and physiology have progressed. Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional ( and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe) .9
The idea of vestigial organs in humans also is discussed in popular books on science and medicine , whose authors frequently admit that the common examples no longer are considered as valid. One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to circumcision
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery . Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before , and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery [emphasis in original ].’10
The revisionists ’ definition
The claim by creationists that there are no vestigial organs in humans usually refers to the most common definition that has been employed for the past century, not the problematic, newer definition now being used by evolutionists in an attempt to salvage the idea — i.e . organs that have ‘reduced function ’ compared to their putative use in some vague , undefined past. According to the revisionists ’ definition, a vestigial structure is:
‘Any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary . Examples are the human appendix and the wings of the ostrich.’ 11
Another source defines a vestigial structure as ‘any organ that during the course of evolution has become reduced in function and usually in size ’. 12 This revisionistic definition of ‘reduced in size and function’ is unwarranted for several reasons. For example , how much reduction is required before the label ‘ vestigial ’ becomes appropriate? Is 30% a large enough reduction, or will a 1 % reduction suffice ? In addition, there are so many examples of ‘reduced size ’ (and sometimes function ) that the label ‘vestigial ’ becomes meaningless .
For example , an analysis of the skull morphology of our supposed evolutionary ancestors would lead to the conclusion that our jaw is vestigial , as compared to that of our alleged ancestors , since it is alleged by evolutionists to be comparatively smaller in humans today (and also has a reduced function, at least relative to its strength and ability to masticate food) . In fact , as a result of our smaller jaw, some of our teeth (e .g . wisdom teeth ) are claimed to be vestigial .13
This definition of vestigial also would necessitate the conclusion that because the external nasal orifices ( the nostrils ) are smaller in modern humans (compared to hypothetical ape -like ancestors ), they, too , should be labelled as vestigial . Many people have problems breathing partly because their nostril passages are too small , as is obvious from the widespread use of nose bridge expander units and nasal sprays. This also is illustrated by the frequency of rhinoplasty surgery, especially surgery to repair a deviated septum . No evolutionists have claimed that our jaws or nostrils are vestigial , yet according to the revisionists ’ definition they clearly would be vestigial structures .
Furthermore , since the human jaw , eyes , eyebrows, brow ridges , front limbs , nose, ears, eyes and even mouth could be labelled vestigial , the term obviously becomes meaningless when defined in this fashion. The textbook illustrations of our alleged ancestors consistently show them with thick skulls and large protruding brow ridges that serve to protect their eyes . Our skull and brow ridges therefore would be vestigial . Why natural selection would cause these structures to diminish in size in modern humans is never discussed ( especially since selection would appear to do the opposite ) .
Evolutionists even use the lack of brow ridges in humans as an example of poor design. For example , Colby concluded that the ‘human skull is too thin to provide adequate protection to the gigantic brain and the absence of brow ridges leaves the eyes poorly protected’ .14
Vestigial structures?
A list of some of the 180 structures that were considered vestigial in the early 1900’s . It is now almost unanimously agreed that most of these structures have at least one function .
Furthermore , on the average , muscle mass , organ function and strength have decreased in modern humans , no doubt through lack of use due to living in modern society. By the revisionists ’ definition, aging alone produces vestigial organs in virtually every human.
If the definition of a vestigial organ is one that is less developed in a modern animal ( compared to an ancestor) due to loss mutations , adaptation, etc. , all organs in modern humans that were more developed in our alleged ancestors would be vestigial . This means that if macroevolution were true , and if humans evolved from lower animals , one could argue that virtually every structure in modern humans is vestigial because vestigial organs are defined as those that are somewhat less useful today then they were in the past. A rare exception would be the human brain— and even the brain could be claimed to be vestigial in size if we accepted Neandertals as our ancestors. 15 Neandertals , on the average , had a brain larger than modern humans— about 1, 500 cc compared to 1 ,300 cc for people today .
Probably the best example of this definition of vestigial structures is the ability of some bacteria to digest the most common organic compound on earth , cellulose. Cellulose is the chief component of plants (grass , leaves, wood and tree bark are primarily cellulose; see Black 16). The only reason that many animals (including cows, horses, sheep and termites ) can use grass and wood for food is because they have a symbiotic relationship with certain bacteria that are able to digest cellulose.
Yet evolutionists postulate that higher organisms lost the ability to digest cellulose. Thus , most modern animals have a vestigial cellulose metabolism system. If humans possessed this ability , starvation and most malnutrition would be a thing of the past. Starvation and malnutrition have been major problems throughout history, and even today an estimated 60 percent of the world ’s population is malnourished. Evolution, it would seem , should select for the ability to metabolize cellulose, and certainly would select against those life-forms that lost this ability.
The revisionists ’ definition of vestigial also requires that the evolutionary history of an animal is known , when, in fact , the history of most , if not all, life often is admittedly largely speculation. Furthermore, the judgment of vestigial is based on evaluations of modern examples of apes, rabbits , other animals and humans. These judgments cannot be based on our actual evolutionary ancestors for several reasons . Although many fossil bone fragments have been found , no well -preserved mammals (or mammal organs) that are estimated to be 1, 000,000 , or even 50 ,000, years old exist. Consequently usually only modern examples can be used for comparison. Note Asimov ’s example :
‘In certain plant- eating animals, the caecum is a large storage place where food may remain to be broken down by bacteria so that the animal itself may more easily digest and absorb it. The appendix in man and the apes ( it occurs in almost no other animal) is what remains of that large caecum . It indicates that the fairly near ancestors of man and the apes were plant -eaters . The appendix is thus the useless remainder of a once useful organ; it is a vestige, from the Latin ‘vestigium ’ ( footprint ). Just as a footprint is a sign that a man once passed that way, so a vestige is a sign that a useful organ once passed that way. ’17
The example often given to support this conclusion , the modern human appendix, is judged vestigial when compared to an animal that has a larger appendix (such as the modern rabbit ). What should be compared , though, is not modern humans and modern rabbits but modern humans and our actual ancestors— something that can only be estimated by examining extant fossil remains of our putative ancestors ( most of which are badly distorted bone fragments ). Much can be learned about an animal from bone fragments , but little can be ascertained about organs, organ tissues , cell structures and most other key biological aspects of life because no examples exist in the fossil record . The only criterion for making judgments about organ evolution is an examination of modern animals (like the rabbit) . The vestigial organ argument becomes a classic case of circular reasoning when it infers reduced organ size because of accepted phylogenies and then uses this alleged reduction to prove the phylogenies .
Yet another revisionist ’s definition suggests that any ‘organ or structure that lacks function related to the animal’s survival ’ should be labelled as vestigial . Actually , all organisms have large numbers of structures that fit this definition. To creationists , this fact argues for a designer , because such structures cannot be explained by natural selection for the simple reason that they confer no known survival advantage . Examples are everywhere, and in humans include the ability to create music , song and dance . Even in the plant world there are many examples of structures that cannot be explained by natural selection . Some modern flowering plants (such as dandelions ) are self-pollinating and consequently have no need for flowers. According to the ‘lacking function for survival’ definition, they would be vestigial .
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 1:09am On Nov 20, 2016
For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.

Many, perhaps most, evolutionists are not atheists. If you take the claim seriously, you must claim that the following people are atheists, to give just a few examples:

Sir Ronald Fisher -- the most distinguished theoretical biologist in the history of evolutionary thought. He was also a Christian (a member of the Church of England) and a conservative whose social views were somewhere to the right of Louis XIV.

Pope John Paul II -- a social conservative.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution.

President Jimmy Carter -- a devout and active Southern Baptist.

More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

conclusion : I wonder why someone will then say faith blinds Christians to deny the evolution. Being religious doesn't make one unscientific.
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by PastorAIO: 1:47pm On Nov 20, 2016
Kalatium:

OK it does not amount to discrediting Evolution. Am only questioning it because we may be misled today
Kalatium:

I didn't dismiss evolution totally, I said some part of evolution are not consistent.
Yea...so part of the Bible are inconsistent.
But I didn't remember saying evolution to be discarded, so why will I discard religious beliefs
Am just trying to question evolution
It is untrue for anyone to claim that no true scientist reject evolution
The following are list of those who accept creation and reject evolution.


I think I may be understanding you now. I'm not sure.

Maybe you mean that you don't believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution By Natural Selection, as opposed to an outright rejection of evolution as a phenomenon. If this were the case then I might even be in total agreement with you.

If however you are talking about a rejection of evolution as a whole then you are contradicting yourself when you on the one hand claim that you are only saying "some parts are inconsistent" and then on the other hand put forward arguments based on scientists who "reject evolution".

1 Like

Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by PastorAIO: 1:53pm On Nov 20, 2016
Kalatium:
For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.


The kind of God that Darwin's theory of Evolution by natural selection does not rule out would be a deist god. Not the kind of God that we read about in the bible.

The reason's that Darwin gave for his increasing atheism was not based on his theory. Rather it was based on the Absurd levels of suffering found in nature, for instance insects whose life cycles depends on laying eggs in the eyes of infants which then eat out the eye as larvae until they mature, causing much unbearable suffering to the host. How can that be the natural life cycle of a specie created by a supposedly loving God?

Darwin's theory would very much allow for a Deist God or a heartless cruel monster of a God.

1 Like

Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by PastorAIO: 1:56pm On Nov 20, 2016
Kalatium:


conclusion : I wonder why someone will then say faith blinds Christians to deny the evolution. Being religious doesn't make one unscientific.

Why then do you think that most christians on this forum and further afield in the world are so opposed to Evolution and outright deny it?


That is the only reason I can imagine that people say that faith blinds christians to evolution, the evident fact that many of them are opposed to it.

1 Like

Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 3:49pm On Nov 20, 2016
PastorAIO:



I think I may be understanding you now. I'm not sure.

Maybe you mean that you don't believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution By Natural Selection, as opposed to an outright rejection of evolution as a phenomenon. If this were the case then I might even be in total agreement with you.

If however you are talking about a rejection of evolution as a whole then you are contradicting yourself when you on the one hand claim that you are only saying "some parts are inconsistent" and then on the other hand put forward arguments based on scientists who "reject evolution".

Now you understand my point @ the bolded
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 3:52pm On Nov 20, 2016
PastorAIO:


Why then do you think that most christians on this forum and further afield in the world are so opposed to Evolution and outright deny it?


That is the only reason I can imagine that people say that faith blinds christians to evolution, the evident fact that many of them are opposed to it.

They are being deceived by creationist that evolution opposes the bible.
But if some Christians can accept evolution may be the rest are bias
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 3:53pm On Nov 20, 2016
PastorAIO:



The kind of God that Darwin's theory of Evolution by natural selection does not rule out would be a deist god. Not the kind of God that we read about in the bible.

The reason's that Darwin gave for his increasing atheism was not based on his theory. Rather it was based on the Absurd levels of suffering found in nature, for instance insects whose life cycles depends on laying eggs in the eyes of infants which then eat out the eye as larvae until they mature, causing much unbearable suffering to the host. How can that be the natural life cycle of a specie created by a supposedly loving God?

Darwin's theory would very much allow for a Deist God or a heartless cruel monster of a God.



Can you explain what you mean by deist God
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 3:56pm On Nov 20, 2016
PastorAIO:


Why then do you think that most christians on this forum and further afield in the world are so opposed to Evolution and outright deny it?


That is the only reason I can imagine that people say that faith blinds christians to evolution, the evident fact that many of them are opposed to it.


This is the reason I can explain

Why Creationism Isn’t Science
There is no doubt that the most central issue in the evolution/creationism debate is whether creationism deserves to be called science. Creationists argue vehemently that it does, for obvious reasons: if that were the case, creationism would be a competing scientific hypothesis deserving of teaching time in public schools alongside evolution. Most scientists, on the other hand, dismiss creationism as religious and inherently non-scientific.
The “demarcation problem” – where exactly to draw the line between science and non-science – is a thorny issue that has occupied many prominent philosophers without producing a clear answer, and this essay will not attempt to solve it. However, notwithstanding the fact that the exact boundary between science and non-science is somewhat fuzzy, there are some cases that clearly fall on one side or the other of that line. This essay will argue that creationism is one of these – that it fails the most crucial requirements for science, and moreover, fails so obviously that there can be no doubt of its status.
A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.
Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, “intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.
Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an “ appearance of age” – that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.
Even some of creationism’s defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook
Scientific Creationism that “Creation… is inaccessible to the scientific method”, and that “It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.” His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in
Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that “We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic , relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there’s always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.
This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer doing science.
For further evidence that creationism is not science, consider their “Statements of Faith”. Almost every major creationist organization has one, which consists of a list of tenets that all members of that organization adhere to. The mere existence of such a thing is suspicious; no legitimate scientific body would require its members to hold certain opinions as a precondition of belonging. But it is in the specific wording of these statements that the creationists’ bias comes out most clearly. These affirmations show in exceedingly clear detail that creationists subscribe, not to the self-correcting system of science, but to the infallible dogma of fundamentalist religion.
Presented for your approval, here are excerpts from some of the statements of faith of prominent creationist organizations.
The Institute for Creation Research: Tenets of Creationism
In their belief statement, the ICR attempts to draw a distinction between “scientific” and “Biblical” creationism, claiming that the former can and should be taught in public schools, and that only the latter is religious. However, their version of “scientific creationism” includes statements such as “The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity” and “The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator”. These are patently religious statements by any meaningful definition of the word, explicitly invoking supernatural creation, which is definitively outside science. The ICR also boasts “a firm commitment to creationism and to full Biblical inerrancy and authority”. (Note, also, that elsewhere the ICR specifically identifies itself as “an arm of the church”).
Answers in Genesis: Statement of Faith
AiG’s Statement of Faith delivers the most brazenly anti-scientific statement to be found in any creationist document, which is the following, at the very end: “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.” Apparently, as far as this group is concerned, when reality contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, it is reality that is wrong. This is not science, but the antithesis of science. Declaring that you know you are right, that the evidence cannot sway you, and more, that you will reject any evidence that contradicts what you believe, is as unscientific as one can possibly get, and shows in the clearest way imaginable that the brand of creationism these groups espouse is not science but religion.
Reasons to Believe: What We Believe
This old-earth creationist organization’s doctrinal statement says the following: “The following paragraphs express the doctrinal convictions of every member of the Reasons to Believe staff and board of directors…. We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a ‘God-breathed’ revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings.” Reasons to Believe also proclaims that it belongs to the
International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, a group whose own doctrinal statement includes this: “We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.”
Again, these are not scientific, but religious statements. Declaring that their interpretation Bible is completely true and that no evidence can ever disprove any part of it is an admission that their view is unfalsifiable. (Try, by contrast, to find a scientific body saying, “We deny that external evidence can ever disprove evolution or hold priority over it.”) The creationists have come to the table with their minds made up, and they don’t want to be confused by the facts.
The Creation Research Society: Statement of Belief
This document reads in much the same vein as the others. “The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs.” Of course, one’s personal religious beliefs do not prevent one from doing legitimate science. However, when the two are this intimately intertwined, the author’s scientific integrity and objectivity must inevitably be compromised, because their belief that their interpretation of the Bible must be true will tend to override and color everything they observe. Real scientists, by contrast, must always follow where the evidence leads, regardless of whether that evidence overturns a generally accepted theory or even a cherished personal belief. Can any member of the CRS honestly state that they would accept evidence contrary to creationist doctrine?
In closing, it is worth noting the asymmetry here. Imagine if the scientific world was as biased towards evolution as the creationists are against it. Imagine if Nature and other top scientific journals boasted on their masthead that they possessed a “firm commitment to the truth of evolution and the inerrancy and authority of Charles Darwin”, and refused to accept any papers submitted by anyone who held creationist beliefs. Imagine if science popularizers like Stephen Jay Gould or Ken Miller wrote that, “By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including biology, geology and physics, can be valid if it contradicts evolution.” Imagine if publishers of science textbooks or associations of science teachers declared, “We believe that the Origin of Species is completely without error, and all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs.” Imagine, in this scenario, what an outcry the creationists would raise against unscientific bias and prejudice – and justifiably so. Now return to the real world, where exactly the opposite situation pertains. What does this say about the scientific status of both sides in the evolution/creationism debate?
From pantheos.com
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 10:43pm On Nov 20, 2016
After making a study of the Miracles, signs and wonders at the Holy Scoan Church Nigeria, see if you still find the theories of evolution interesting.

WHY THERE IS NO MIRACLE, SIGNS AND WONDERS.

See the miraculous power of Jesus Christ in action. All this was first for the Jews !
Scoan Church Nigeria’s power with the holy Prophet TB Joshua is unstoppable !!
He is just the greatest living and verifiable prophet on earth now.
Scoan Church Nigeria was personally examined by the following highly respected persons;
1) PROMINENT DUTCH THEOLOGIAN PROFESSOR WILLEM J. OUWENEEL ABOUT PROPHET T.B. JOSHUA AND THE SCOAN, LAGOS, NIGERIA. Professor Ouweneel holds doctorates in biology (Utrecht), philosophy (Amsterdam) and theology (Bloemfontein, RSA).
He concluded that his experience at Scoan was awesome.

2) Renowned global evangelist, P.S. Upthegrove’s who had successfully pastored AA Allen’s church as a minister.
He concluded that he was on Holy ground at Scoan.
He recounted how seeing such power demonstrated reminded him of all he had witnessed through ministers of God such as Oral Roberts, AA Allen, William Branham and RW Shambach who he had the privilege to work with and know personally.

3) Group from New Zealand:
Among our group there were three senior pastors, two evangelists and two men leading major Christian work in New Zealand. Between us we had 180 years of ministry.
Our conclusion was that this is truly a work of God.

4) The Religious Monitoring Group have investigated Joshua and the Synagogue, Church of All Nations and have concluded that he is a man of God.

5) God only reveals His top secrets to those He loves. He revealed the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ to Prophet Isaiah. In the same vein, Jesus Christ revealed who Prophet TB Joshua is to His beloved servant, late Prophet (Dr.) Akin Adewole, shepherd of the Celestial Church of Christ, Opopo Igbala Parish, Ikola Road, Ipaja, Lagos sometime in 1995.
He concluded that TB Joshua is a Prophet of God.

Only an insane or demon possessed person will even attempt to argue with truth that can also be scientifically verified. Although God don’t need science to make Himself known.


Kalatium:
When you were is secondary school you may have heard about evolution, that humans evolved from apelike creatures.
But recently, scientists begin to question the theory of evolution. Recent information derived from 50 years research in DNA shows that DNA cannot mutate to form another organism. Scientists also realised that there is no way life can come from non life(organic soup) and no way cellular organisms develop to complex multicellular organisms.
Almost st all what you have been taught about evolution before is now proven false
http://www.icr.org/article/5136/282

CONTINUATION...

Am not here to prove creationism am here to bring scientific evidence against evolution.

EVIDENCES

1. The biggest shame committed by evolution is forgery, evolutionists forge evidences just to prove their theory(e.g Ernst haekel, who drew fake drawings in comparing the anatomy of vertebrates) but they were exposed by other scientists. Go to this link http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=hoaxes
The issue of hoaxes is an undisputable fact against evolution because how sure are we that we are not misled today.

2. No evidence has shown that an organism evolved into another different species (only microevolution occurs:evolution within species eg drug resistance in bacteria). Evolutionists say drug resistance is evidence of evolution (microevolution) but no new bacteria that is formed despite generation of mutations.
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 10:44pm On Nov 20, 2016
Importantly, because most humans lack the ability to switch between intellectual concepts and spiritual concepts, Jesus spoke differently to his apprentice pastors/disciples compared with the way he spoke to the masses.

Suffering people of all races and religions are now lovingly and effectively helped by the Holy Scoan Church and Emmanuel TV and youtube.com to overcome the centuries old trap laid for them by powerful church leaders, governments and influential Satanic groups.
See clearly how the Holy Gospels and the Holy Books Of ACTS come to life in Scoan Church Nigeria.

To the uninitiated/ungodly he said this,
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the WORKS(miracles, signs, prophecy and many wonders) that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.


WHY THERE IS NO MIRACLE, SIGNS AND WONDERS.

See the miraculous power of Jesus Christ in action. All this was first for the Jews !
Scoan Church Nigeria’s power with the holy Prophet TB Joshua is unstoppable !!
He is just the greatest living and verifiable prophet on earth now.
Scoan Church Nigeria was personally examined by the following highly respected persons;
1) PROMINENT DUTCH THEOLOGIAN PROFESSOR WILLEM J. OUWENEEL ABOUT PROPHET T.B. JOSHUA AND THE SCOAN, LAGOS, NIGERIA. Professor Ouweneel holds doctorates in biology (Utrecht), philosophy (Amsterdam) and theology (Bloemfontein, RSA).
He concluded that his experience at Scoan was awesome.

2) Renowned global evangelist, P.S. Upthegrove’s who had successfully pastored AA Allen’s church as a minister.
He concluded that he was on Holy ground at Scoan.
He recounted how seeing such power demonstrated reminded him of all he had witnessed through ministers of God such as Oral Roberts, AA Allen, William Branham and RW Shambach who he had the privilege to work with and know personally.

3) Group from New Zealand:
Among our group there were three senior pastors, two evangelists and two men leading major Christian work in New Zealand. Between us we had 180 years of ministry.
Our conclusion was that this is truly a work of God.

4) The Religious Monitoring Group have investigated Joshua and the Synagogue, Church of All Nations and have concluded that he is a man of God.

5) God only reveals His top secrets to those He loves. He revealed the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ to Prophet Isaiah. In the same vein, Jesus Christ revealed who Prophet TB Joshua is to His beloved servant, late Prophet (Dr.) Akin Adewole, shepherd of the Celestial Church of Christ, Opopo Igbala Parish, Ikola Road, Ipaja, Lagos sometime in 1995.
He concluded that TB Joshua is a Prophet of God.

Only an insane or demon possessed person will even attempt to argue with truth that can also be scientifically verified. Although God don’t need science to make Himself known.
Kalatium:

I am not trying to prove creationism, I have not seen any undisputable fact in evolution
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 11:16pm On Nov 20, 2016
ScienceWatch:
Importantly, because most humans lack the ability to switch between intellectual concepts and spiritual concepts, Jesus spoke differently to his apprentice pastors/disciples compared with the way he spoke to the masses.

Suffering people of all races and religions are now lovingly and effectively helped by the Holy Scoan Church and Emmanuel TV and youtube.com to overcome the centuries old trap laid for them by powerful church leaders, governments and influential Satanic groups.
See clearly how the Holy Gospels and the Holy Books Of ACTS come to life in Scoan Church Nigeria.

To the uninitiated/ungodly he said this,
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the WORKS(miracles, signs, prophecy and many wonders) that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.


WHY THERE IS NO MIRACLE, SIGNS AND WONDERS.

See the miraculous power of Jesus Christ in action. All this was first for the Jews !
Scoan Church Nigeria’s power with the holy Prophet TB Joshua is unstoppable !!
He is just the greatest living and verifiable prophet on earth now.
Scoan Church Nigeria was personally examined by the following highly respected persons;
1) PROMINENT DUTCH THEOLOGIAN PROFESSOR WILLEM J. OUWENEEL ABOUT PROPHET T.B. JOSHUA AND THE SCOAN, LAGOS, NIGERIA. Professor Ouweneel holds doctorates in biology (Utrecht), philosophy (Amsterdam) and theology (Bloemfontein, RSA).
He concluded that his experience at Scoan was awesome.

2) Renowned global evangelist, P.S. Upthegrove’s who had successfully pastored AA Allen’s church as a minister.
He concluded that he was on Holy ground at Scoan.
He recounted how seeing such power demonstrated reminded him of all he had witnessed through ministers of God such as Oral Roberts, AA Allen, William Branham and RW Shambach who he had the privilege to work with and know personally.

3) Group from New Zealand:
Among our group there were three senior pastors, two evangelists and two men leading major Christian work in New Zealand. Between us we had 180 years of ministry.
Our conclusion was that this is truly a work of God.

4) The Religious Monitoring Group have investigated Joshua and the Synagogue, Church of All Nations and have concluded that he is a man of God.

5) God only reveals His top secrets to those He loves. He revealed the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ to Prophet Isaiah. In the same vein, Jesus Christ revealed who Prophet TB Joshua is to His beloved servant, late Prophet (Dr.) Akin Adewole, shepherd of the Celestial Church of Christ, Opopo Igbala Parish, Ikola Road, Ipaja, Lagos sometime in 1995.
He concluded that TB Joshua is a Prophet of God.

Only an insane or demon possessed person will even attempt to argue with truth that can also be scientifically verified. Although God don’t need science to make Himself known.
Kind of confused... What is your point
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 11:44pm On Nov 20, 2016
Kalatium:

A hoax is something with an intent to deceive. Piltdown man is a deception while biblical ones are contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronisms
CONTINUATION
Peer review does not prevent fraud

Fraud is a substantial problem in scientific research and the attitude toward it has changed little over the years .
Richard Smith , a former editor of the British Medical Journal and chief executive of the BMJ publishing group , admitted that fraudulent research regularly appears in the 30,000 scientific journals published worldwide . However, ‘[m ] ost cases are not publicised . They are simply not recognised, covered up altogether or the guilty researcher is urged to retrain, move to another institution or retire from research. ’ He also acknowledged that even when journals discover that published research is fabricated or falsified they rarely retract the findings ,12 usually out of fear of lawsuits.

Well known cases of fraud include the Piltdown man hoax, an obvious fraud that was not exposed for 40 years ; and more recently , the Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk , who falsified data relating to his embryonic stem cell/ cloning research;13 as well as a series of papers on superconductivity by Jan Hendrik Schön published in Nature from 2000 to 2001 period , but had to be retracted in 2003 because they contained falsified data and other scientific fraud.

Of particular interest is the recently exposed fraudulent activities of German anthropologist Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten . For thirty years , Protsch systematically falsified the dates on numerous ‘stone age ’ relics . According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man' s development will have to be rewritten . Thomas Terberger , the archaeologist who discovered the hoax, stated : ‘Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago .’ An inquiry established that Protsch had passed off fake fossils as real ones and had plagiarised other scientists ’ work. It was established that one of his more sensational finds, ‘ and Binshof-Speyer ’ woman, lived in 1,300 bc rather than 21,300 years ago , as he had claimed and his ‘Paderborn- Sande man’ discovery (dated at 27 ,400 bc) only died a couple of hundred years ago , in 1750 . The inquiry was told that an important Hamburg Neandertal skull fragment believed to be from the world ’s oldest German , was actually a mere 7,500 years old , according to Oxford University ’s radiocarbon dating unit . The unit established that a number of other skulls had also been wrongly dated .15 Frankfurt University’ s president, Rudolf Steinberg , apologised for the university ’s failure to curb Protsch’s habitual misconduct over many decades , admitting that ‘[ a] lot of people looked the other way .’

This evidence still convince me that there is likelihood we are deceived today just to provide enough evidence for evolution . Am not saying evolution is totally wrong but am questioning it's integrity, sometimes we are misled
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 2:28am On Nov 24, 2016
Kalatium:
When you were is secondary school you may have heard about evolution, that humans evolved from apelike creatures.
But recently, scientists begin to question the theory of evolution. Recent information derived from 50 years research in DNA shows that DNA cannot mutate to form another organism. Scientists also realised that there is no way life can come from non life(organic soup) and no way cellular organisms develop to complex multicellular organisms.
Almost st all what you have been taught about evolution before is now proven false
http://www.icr.org/article/5136/282

CONTINUATION...

Am not here to prove creationism am here to bring scientific evidence against evolution.

EVIDENCES

1. The biggest shame committed by evolution is forgery, evolutionists forge evidences just to prove their theory(e.g Ernst haekel, who drew fake drawings in comparing the anatomy of vertebrates) but they were exposed by other scientists. Go to this link http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=hoaxes
The issue of hoaxes is an undisputable fact against evolution because how sure are we that we are not misled today.

2. No evidence has shown that an organism evolved into another different species (only microevolution occurs:evolution within species eg drug resistance in bacteria). Evolutionists say drug resistance is evidence of evolution (microevolution) but no new bacteria that is formed despite generation of mutations.
Finally honest scientists have seen evolution and the Big Bang for what it always was. A SERIOUS SCAM !

Honest scientists have seen overwhelming scientifically verifiable evidence coming out of the Holy Scoan Church Nigeria and two excellent sources of study, Emmanuel TV and youtube.com

There can be no more tragic expression of human foolishness and perversity than the Jews rejection of The Messiah. In spite of hundreds of years of waiting and studying their scriptures concerning the coming of Jesus Christ, they dismissed him and instigated his destruction. The Jews plan failed, Jesus is risen from death. God will not be mocked !

Jesus Christ’s birth, His miracles, His mastery of satin, His cruel death, His forgiveness of his murderers and His resurrection from the grave was needed as verifiable evidence of the mystical, supernatural creation nature of God.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. On our journey to discover scientifically verifiable evidence of Jesus’ miracles, we found a very powerful, scientifically verifiable source. It is the Scoan Church on Emmanual TV and youtube.com
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 2:33am On Nov 24, 2016
Kalatium:
For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.

Many, perhaps most, evolutionists are not atheists. If you take the claim seriously, you must claim that the following people are atheists, to give just a few examples:

Sir Ronald Fisher -- the most distinguished theoretical biologist in the history of evolutionary thought. He was also a Christian (a member of the Church of England) and a conservative whose social views were somewhere to the right of Louis XIV.

Pope John Paul II -- a social conservative.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution.

President Jimmy Carter -- a devout and active Southern Baptist.

More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

conclusion : I wonder why someone will then say faith blinds Christians to deny the evolution. Being religious doesn't make one unscientific.
Finally honest scientists have seen evolution and the Big Bang for what it always was. A SERIOUS SCAM !

Honest scientists have seen overwhelming scientifically verifiable evidence coming out of the Holy Scoan Church Nigeria and two excellent sources of study, Emmanuel TV and youtube.com

There can be no more tragic expression of human foolishness and perversity than the Jews rejection of The Messiah. In spite of hundreds of years of waiting and studying their scriptures concerning the coming of Jesus Christ, they dismissed him and instigated his destruction. The Jews plan failed, Jesus is risen from death. God will not be mocked !

Jesus Christ’s birth, His miracles, His mastery of satin, His cruel death, His forgiveness of his murderers and His resurrection from the grave was needed as verifiable evidence of the mystical, supernatural creation nature of God.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. On our journey to discover scientifically verifiable evidence of Jesus’ miracles, we found a very powerful, scientifically verifiable source. It is the Scoan Church on Emmanual TV and youtube.com
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 9:31am On Nov 24, 2016
For those criticising creationist that their assertions are bias.
Michael behe was criticised in his book, edge of evolution. Many scientists criticised him for deceiving the masses claiming he was wrong but in reality they only misunderstood him. Here is a link from a science website that shows behe was right and his critics wrong
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe087901.html
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 1:37am On Nov 26, 2016
Kalatium:

Kind of confused... What is your point
I thought you would be smart enough to understand the point made.

Confusion, that is the product of atheism, the big bang and evolution, These ruthless doctrines are designed with five impossible end goals;

Enlightened Readers of the esteemed Nairaland, will fill in the blanks
1) Confuse the populace, and make them believe in mere unproven theories.

2) ?

3) ?

4) ?

5) ?
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 5:40pm On Nov 27, 2016
ScienceWatch:
I thought you would be smart enough to understand the point made.

Confusion, that is the product of atheism, the big bang and evolution, These ruthless doctrines are designed with five impossible end goals;

Enlightened Readers of the esteemed Nairaland, will fill in the blanks
1) Confuse the populace, and make them believe in mere unproven theories.

2) ?

3) ?

4) ?

5) ?
Yea
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 2:24am On Dec 04, 2016
Kalatium:

Kind of confused... What is your point
Sorry for the confusion. Examine more info on the scam of evolution.

Albert Einstein - Defrauded his own Theory of Relativity.

Albert Einstein - did not believe in a personal God. A God that will heal and deliver.

Although today he has been proven wrong by the overwhelming biblical and scientifically vrifiable evidence coming out of Scoan Church Nigeria. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion.

While developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that his mathematical equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. But because he was atheist/deist/agnostic/humanist etc he defrauded the results to fit in with his own beliefs. Can scientists be trusted ?

Einstein didn't like the idea of a beginning of the universe , because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he cunningly added a cosmological constant to his mathematical equation to attempt to get rid of the evidence of a beginning of the universe.

He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

If we wont worship the creator God,, we are atheists. Don’t be confused with the many fancy titles created, they all mean the same thing in the end.
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 2:25am On Dec 04, 2016
Albert Einstein - Defrauded his own Theory of Relativity.

Albert Einstein - did not believe in a personal God. A God that will heal and deliver.

Although today he has been proven wrong by the overwhelming biblical and scientifically vrifiable evidence coming out of Scoan Church Nigeria. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion.

While developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that his mathematical equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. But because he was atheist/deist/agnostic/humanist etc he defrauded the results to fit in with his own beliefs. Can scientists be trusted ?

Einstein didn't like the idea of a beginning of the universe , because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he cunningly added a cosmological constant to his mathematical equation to attempt to get rid of the evidence of a beginning of the universe.

He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

If we wont worship the creator God,, we are atheists. Don’t be confused with the many fancy titles created, they all mean the same thing in the end.
ayaside:
Source..
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 2:27am On Dec 04, 2016
donnffd:


Do you know one thing about science, it is true whether you believe it or not!, but let me ask you one question!

If you believe that God can override nature to create living things as described in the Book of Genesis, then what reasons do you have, other than your religious beliefs, that God could not have created living things through a process of evolution?
Albert Einstein - Defrauded his own Theory of Relativity.

Albert Einstein - did not believe in a personal God. A God that will heal and deliver.

Although today he has been proven wrong by the overwhelming biblical and scientifically verifiable evidence coming out of Scoan Church Nigeria. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion.

While developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that his mathematical equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. But because he was atheist/deist/agnostic/humanist etc he defrauded the results to fit in with his own beliefs. Can scientists be trusted ?

Einstein didn't like the idea of a beginning of the universe , because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he cunningly added a cosmological constant to his mathematical equation to attempt to get rid of the evidence of a beginning of the universe.

He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

If we wont worship the creator God,, we are atheists. Don’t be confused with the many fancy titles created, they all mean the same thing in the end.
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 2:30am On Dec 04, 2016
raphieMontella:

First,you have to understand that evolution is not ''darwinism''(darwins theory of evolution)
just like gravity is not newton's law of gravity..
Evolution,like gravity is a FACT...
the proofs you need on evolution can be found---HERE
And related issues on evolution---HERE
P.s :It will take you some time tho...
Shocking revelation about the great Albert Einstein - the conman

Albert Einstein - Defrauded his own Theory of Relativity.

Albert Einstein - did not believe in a personal God. A God that will heal and deliver.

Although today he has been proven wrong by the overwhelming biblical and scientifically verifiable evidence coming out of Scoan Church Nigeria. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion.

While developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that his mathematical equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. But because he was atheist/deist/agnostic/humanist etc he defrauded the results to fit in with his own beliefs. Can scientists be trusted ?

Einstein didn't like the idea of a beginning of the universe , because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he cunningly added a cosmological constant to his mathematical equation to attempt to get rid of the evidence of a beginning of the universe.

He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

If we wont worship the creator God,, we are atheists. Don’t be confused with the many fancy titles created, they all mean the same thing in the end.
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by donnffd(m): 6:51am On Dec 04, 2016
ScienceWatch:
Albert Einstein - Defrauded his own Theory of Relativity.

Albert Einstein - did not believe in a personal God. A God that will heal and deliver.

Although today he has been proven wrong by the overwhelming biblical and scientifically verifiable evidence coming out of Scoan Church Nigeria. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion.

While developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that his mathematical equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. But because he was atheist/deist/agnostic/humanist etc he defrauded the results to fit in with his own beliefs. Can scientists be trusted ?

Einstein didn't like the idea of a beginning of the universe , because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he cunningly added a cosmological constant to his mathematical equation to attempt to get rid of the evidence of a beginning of the universe.

He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

If we wont worship the creator God,, we are atheists. Don’t be confused with the many fancy titles created, they all mean the same thing in the end.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the question i asked...

Secondly, you twisted the reason why einstein edited his equations and lied about the defrauding matter.
Both the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity have predicted accurately and are standards in physics, and even the blunder Einstein claimed he made wasnt actually a blunder, he was correct all along, the rate at which dark energy is expanded the universe is a factor of the cosmological constant whch Einstein taught was a mistake.

Get your stories straight(it had nothing to do with religion).
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 10:40am On Dec 04, 2016
donnffd:


First of all, this has nothing to do with the question i asked...

Secondly, you twisted the reason why einstein edited his equations and lied about the defrauding matter.
Both the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity have predicted accurately and are standards in physics, and even the blunder Einstein claimed he made wasnt actually a blunder, he was correct all along, the rate at which dark energy is expanded the universe is a factor of the cosmological constant whch Einstein taught was a mistake.

Get your stories straight(it had nothing to do with religion).
The gods of the agnostic, atheist, deists, humanist are disguises, but underneath the mask you with find big trouble.

At least protect the youth of the world from this soul destroying satanic inspired belief systems that ends in a Mental Asylum. You will seek help in times of need and these groups will mock you instead. Mercy can not be found among them ! The end result is that you will soon suffer unexplained anger, moodiness, depression, inability to forgive, cruelty, etc, etc, etc. Then you will be ready to except scientific solutions to spiritual problems. They will give you dangerous mind altering drugs that has no cure.

The satanic master minds of these systems suffered terrible mental problems and spread explosive suffering to the world : Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Henry Huxley and Nietzsche, Issac Newton, Albert Einstein and many more.
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 10:42am On Dec 04, 2016
Kalatium:
When you were is secondary school you may have heard about evolution, that humans evolved from apelike creatures.
But recently, scientists begin to question the theory of evolution. Recent information derived from 50 years research in DNA shows that DNA cannot mutate to form another organism. Scientists also realised that there is no way life can come from non life(organic soup) and no way cellular organisms develop to complex multicellular organisms.
Almost st all what you have been taught about evolution before is now proven false
http://www.icr.org/article/5136/282

CONTINUATION...

Am not here to prove creationism am here to bring scientific evidence against evolution.

EVIDENCES

1. The biggest shame committed by evolution is forgery, evolutionists forge evidences just to prove their theory(e.g Ernst haekel, who drew fake drawings in comparing the anatomy of vertebrates) but they were exposed by other scientists. Go to this link http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=hoaxes
The issue of hoaxes is an undisputable fact against evolution because how sure are we that we are not misled today.

2. No evidence has shown that an organism evolved into another different species (only microevolution occurs:evolution within species eg drug resistance in bacteria). Evolutionists say drug resistance is evidence of evolution (microevolution) but no new bacteria that is formed despite generation of mutations.
The gods of the agnostic, atheist, deists, humanist are disguises, but underneath the mask you with find big trouble.

At least protect the youth of the world from this soul destroying satanic inspired belief systems that ends in a Mental Asylum. You will seek help in times of need and these groups will mock you instead. Mercy can not be found among them !

The end result of agnostic, atheist, deists and humanism is that you will soon suffer unexplained anger, moodiness, depression, inability to forgive, cruelty, etc, etc, etc. Then you will be ready to except scientific solutions to spiritual problems. They will give you dangerous mind altering drugs that has no cure. Science will not be able to help you !

The satanic master minds of these systems suffered terrible mental problems and spread explosive suffering to the world : Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Henry Huxley and Nietzsche, Issac Newton, Albert Einstein and many more.
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 2:07pm On Dec 04, 2016
donnffd:


First of all, this has nothing to do with the question i asked...

Secondly, you twisted the reason why einstein edited his equations and lied about the defrauding matter.
Both the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity have predicted accurately and are standards in physics, and even the blunder Einstein claimed he made wasnt actually a blunder, he was correct all along, the rate at which dark energy is expanded the universe is a factor of the cosmological constant whch Einstein taught was a mistake.

Get your stories straight(it had nothing to do with religion).
Did you not know how this fake evolution theories have a lot to do with religion ?
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by PastorAIO: 2:12pm On Dec 04, 2016
donnffd:


First of all, this has nothing to do with the question i asked...

Secondly, you twisted the reason why einstein edited his equations and lied about the defrauding matter.
Both the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity have predicted accurately and are standards in physics, and even the blunder Einstein claimed he made wasnt actually a blunder, he was correct all along, the rate at which dark energy is expanded the universe is a factor of the cosmological constant whch Einstein taught was a mistake.

Get your stories straight(it had nothing to do with religion).

Don't feed the troll, man. Clear Road for JagaJaga.

1 Like

Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by Kalatium(m): 12:32am On Jan 04, 2017
ScienceWatch:
The gods of the agnostic, atheist, deists, humanist are disguises, but underneath the mask you with find big trouble.

At least protect the youth of the world from this soul destroying satanic inspired belief systems that ends in a Mental Asylum. You will seek help in times of need and these groups will mock you instead. Mercy can not be found among them !

The end result of agnostic, atheist, deists and humanism is that you will soon suffer unexplained anger, moodiness, depression, inability to forgive, cruelty, etc, etc, etc. Then you will be ready to except scientific solutions to spiritual problems. They will give you dangerous mind altering drugs that has no cure. Science will not be able to help you !

The satanic master minds of these systems suffered terrible mental problems and spread explosive suffering to the world : Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Henry Huxley and Nietzsche, Issac Newton, Albert Einstein and many more.
Don't tell me Isaac Newton is a Satanic mastermind
Re: Problems with Evolutionary Theory by ScienceWatch: 10:55pm On Jan 06, 2017
EyeHateGod:
By Who? And when would the Noble price be given to that person
Albert Einstein - Defrauded his own Theory of Relativity and Evolution theory
Einstein’s mathematical equations at first led him to the stunning conclusion that the universe was created. He eventually went mental.

Albert Einstein - did not believe in a personal God. A God that will heal and deliver.
So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God: The same like atheist just another fancy title for the sake of status and to fool Christianity.


Although today Einstein has been proven wrong by the overwhelming biblical and scientifically verifiable evidence coming out of Scoan Church Nigeria that the true God cares for our personal problems. However, it is interesting how Einstein arrived at that conclusion.

While developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that his mathematical equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning and therefore a creator. But because he was atheist/deist/agnostic/humanist etc he defrauded the results to fit in with his own beliefs. Can scientists be trusted ?

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply)

Zambian Pastor laments about Nigeria Gospel Junk exported all over Africa / ''born Again'' -what Did Jesus Mean? / To The Yorubas "Stop Praising Olorun, He Is Not The Christian God"

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 231
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.