Are You Religious?

[PB_guy]

I apologize in advance for this extremely lengthy response to James posting of the 29+ evidences for evolution. But it demonstrates just how huge a problem arises if we engage in "elephant hurling" I only post some responses to the number one point. Since it leads to a falsification of the theory of evolution, there is no need to continue to the next one. No-one will take the time to read an entire treatise and respond because evaluation of the paper is just not that important to them. And it won't change their worldview anyway.

Referring to the article pointed to by James here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Note that even the evolutionist accepts that abiogenesis is statistically impossible, therfore it is assumed (taken on faith): "it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past"

Section: Introduction to phylogenetics. Evolutionary phylogenetic trees are common. ie. "a method for determining phylogenetic trees based on morphology" But classification of organisms based on morphology was invented by Linnaeus, a creationist who believed that God is a God of order, and not chaos. A major problem with phylogenetic trees and other related models is the lack of evidence that supports the links between known organisms and their supposed fossil relatives. An alternate to the phylogenetic tree is the phylogenetic orchard, where each tree in the orchard is the original created "kind", approximated by family, and the branches of the tree going down to species and sub-species. see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...fying-life

From the paper, Prediction 1.1 the fundamental unity of life

According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past.

From this you can know for sure that abiogenesis is so statistically impossible that the evolutionist assumes it could only have occurred once.

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.

Since everything was created by a single Creator, could not the same thing be said about common design? That God would only need a single code for DNA? The argument proves nothing.

I found this statement astounding because it is so true, and so rare.

Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

Now for some problems with the assumptions.

Problems with Chemical Homology: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...een-proven

Many evolutionists readily admit that they have failed to find evidence of the evolution of large structures such as bones and muscles, so instead they argue that they have found homology among the complex organic molecules that are found in living systems. One of these is hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. Although this protein is found in nearly all vertebrates, it is also found in some invertebrates (worms, starfish, clams, and insects) and also in some bacteria. Yet there is no evidence of the evolution of this chemical—in all cases, the same kind of molecule is complete and fully functional. If evolution has occurred, it should be possible to map out how hemoglobin evolved, but this cannot be done. To the creationist, however, hemoglobin crops up complete and fully functional wherever the Creator deems it fitting in His plan.

Problems with Homology: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...s-homology

Consider hemoglobin, for example, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. Dickerson says that hemoglobins pose “. . . a puzzling problem. Hemoglobins occur sporadically among the invertebrate phyla [the animals without backbones], in no obvious pattern.” That is, they don’t occur in an evolutionary branching pattern. I would suggest that they do occur in a creationist mosaic or modular pattern ......

By comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, Dickerson was hoping to “pin down with great precision” where human beings branched off the mammal line. The results are surprising. In this test, it turned out that humans are more closely related to the chicken than to any living mammal tested! Every evolutionist knows that can’t be true, but how can he get around the objective evidence?

...

In fact, when it comes to many of the similarities among molecules, the theory of evolution is not only weak, it has been falsified. ... Finally, Patterson said with dismay, he was forced to conclude that evolution is an “anti-theory” that generates “anti-knowledge”—a concept full of explanatory vocabulary that actually explains nothing and that even generates a false impression of what the facts are.

...

Michael Denton independently reached the same kind of conclusion regarding homology and the so-called “molecular clock.” After documenting the misfit of molecular data with both of two competing evolutionary views, he writes this summary (p. 306):

The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chaos in evolutionary thought. The evolutionary community has divided into two camps—those still adhering to the selectionist position, and those rejecting it in favor of the neutralist. The devastating aspect of this controversy is that neither side can adequately account for the constancy of the rate of molecular evolution; yet each side fatally weakens the other. The selectionists wound the neutralists’ position by pointing to the disparity in the rates of mutation per unit time, while the neutralists destroy the selectionists’ position by showing how ludicrous it is to believe that selection would have caused equal rates of divergence in “junk” proteins or along phylogenetic lines so dissimilar as those of man and carp. Both sides win valid points, but in the process the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strained and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered.

As you can see, to present a critique of any paper will take a lot of space and a lot of time. That is why I referred to it as the logical fallacy of "elephant hurling". All points in this treatise can also be explained by the existence of a common designer.

Ian