Wesley R. Elsberry posted Entry 54 on March 27, 2004 02:31 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/53

As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies:

As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions.

  1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned.

  2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues.

  3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion.

  4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall.  Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled.

  5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity.

  6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself.

This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #334

Posted by Jason Bontrager on March 28, 2004 7:09 AM (e)

You say: “1. Illegal or offensive comments may be removed in their entirety.”

While I have no difficulty accepting your right to moderate the content of your blog, I do question your use of the term “illegal…comments”. What constitutes and illegal comment? Slander is the only example that springs to mind, and barring a lawsuit on that point it can be tricky to draw a line between slander (e.g. “Leon Kass is a pedophile”) and honest, if unflattering, opinion (e.g. “Leon Kass is a death-worshipping bio-luddite”).

Please elaborate.

Thank you.

Comment #335

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on March 28, 2004 7:14 AM (e)

Violation of fair use of copyright springs to my mind.

Comment #337

Posted by Jason Bontrager on March 28, 2004 7:27 AM (e)

Copyright is a legitimate point that I hadn’t considered. Though duplicating enough of a document to violate fair use, especially in a comments section of a blog, might be difficult:-). Duplicating entire articles would do it.

I withdraw my question.

Comment #339

Posted by Mike Hopkins on March 28, 2004 9:18 AM (e)

Threats of violence are also illegal comments. One might argue that “offensive” might cover that, but it is best to be safe and explicately mention illegal. There are non-offensive illegal comments besides copyright, which Wesley already mentioned, such as using the board for illegal purposes: trying to sell illegal goods, proposing that a felony be committed, etc.

It is a fairly standard practice in “terms of use” type documents explicately disallow anything illegal.


To email change “usenet” to “harlequin2”

Comment #356

Posted by John Wilkins on March 28, 2004 4:05 PM (e)

It should also be borne in mind that this is not restricted to the United States, although since the actual machine is there it might be covered by state and federal jurisdictions to begin with. While it is unusual to get sued in other places for copyright, slander or illegal threat, you can be.

Comment #557

Posted by Christine on April 1, 2004 10:13 PM (e)

Hi, I recently came across a “humanities” course that offered but one seminar of the “design theory”. This class very briefly enlightened us about some of the theories and opinions, analogies, etc related to evolution theory, design theory, and Intelligent Design. Certainly was an interesting and motivating class. I wondered a couple of things. First, was in relation to the analogies many of these theories rely on. Watches and houses, etc and wondered if an anology relating the the human body wouldn’t carry a bit more weight. I am to understand the analogies are likened to “artifacts”…man made…however, if the design theory itself supports the idea of one all powerful, all knowing, and if this “God” was “omni(everything cept carnivous)” then couldn’t an assumption be made the He/She/whatever made man too? I was able to wrap my mind around comparing the “universe” as i know it when using such an analogy as the human being, including all dimensions of our human existence. Just a thought.

Secondly, I was made to understand that ID’ers relied on the generations provided in the Bible to approximate the origins of the “world”. And that this timeline went back approximately 10,000 years. I wonder if a stronger point could have been “origins of humanity” rather than the world. I actually do believe quite strongly myself that mankind can be traced back with some accuracy to the times described by Intelligent Design. That proof of Dinosaurs, etc, existed on this planet many many many years prior to 10,000 years ago, though, could very much weaken this theory. :) Christine
P.S. Any recommendations for further readings would be very much appreciated.

Comment #588

Posted by Teri on April 2, 2004 9:44 PM (e)

HERE’S REAL PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG!!!
[Why Evolution is Impossible]
All life contains DNA, so for evolution to be true the DNA molecule must first evolve. The first problem is that the rate of destruction of even relatively simple chemical compounds, such as amino acids, by ultraviolet light or electrical discharges far exceeds their rate of formation. Thus, no significant quantities would be produced.
Another insurmountable barrier is that these amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein … like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of probability forbid this from happening. The probability of a protein of only 50 amino acids forming by chance would be 1/10 65 to ONE! Or to put it in Layman terms 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1!!!
Even the very simplest cell contains several thousand different kinds of proteins, and many billions of each kind, plus all kinds of DNA, RNA, and other highly complex molecules, along with many complex structures, arranged in an incredibly complex system.
In order to believe in evolution, you have to believe this happened, even though it is statistically impossible. It is much easier to believe that a higher intelligence, God, supernaturally created this complex universe.
[Mitochondrial DNA]
Allan Wilson and Mark Stoneking of the University of California at Berkeley and Rebecca Cann of the University of Hawaii conducted research in 1987 which indicates that all 5 billion people living today came from one woman who lived in the sub-Sahara region. Their theory, known as the “Eve theory,” implies that modern humans did not evolve slowly in many parts of the world as most scientists have long believed, but rather originated in one area.
They based their theory on an analysis of mitochondrial DNA, a form of genetic material found outside the nuclei of human cells, which they had collected from 147 women representing five broad geographical regions around the world. Unlike the DNA found in the nuclei of human cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down from generation to generation through the mother. The researchers maintain that “Eve” is the only woman whose genetic material can be traced down to everyone living today. In Genesis it clearly states, “And
Adam shall call his wife Eve, for she would become the mother of all the living.”
[Anomalies and Misplaced Fossils]
An “anomaly” is a deviation or irregularity, i.e., something that shouldn’t be where it is. A “misplaced fossil” is a fossil or imprint which is located in strata supposedly millions of years out of the defined geologic timetable. Listed below are several examples of anomalies and misplaced fossils.
Dr. Clifford Burdick, a geologist, discovered the footprints of a barefooted child, one of which contained a compressed trilobite (A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Scientists Know Nothing of Evolution, Master Books, San Diego, CA, 1981, p. 166). Trilobites supposedly became extinct 230 million years before the appearance of man.
William Meister, on June 1, 1968, found fossils of several trilobites in the fossilized, sandaled footprint of a man. (W. A. Criswell, Did Man Just Happen? Zondervan Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1973, p. 87). Trilobites supposedly became extinct 230 million years before the appearance of man.
Polystratic Trees, fossilized trees which extend through several layers of strata, have been found in Saint-Etienne, France and other places. For a fossil to form it must be buried quickly, otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for the strata to slowly accumulate around it. This is an anomaly which can’t be explained by the normal process of fossil formation. In some cases polystratic trees bridge a presumed evolutionary time span of millions of years. Polystratic trees are evidence that sedimentary strata were not laid down gradually over millions of years. (R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, Midland, MI, 1981, p. 300-301.)
In Glacier National Park, Pre-Cambrian limestone (supposedly 1 billion years old) is lying on top of a Cretaceous shale formation (supposedly 100 million years old). Geologists attempt to explain this anomaly as an overthrust, where a fault causes the older strata to be thrust over the younger strata. However, this “misplaced” limestone is 350 miles long and 35 miles wide, and shows no signs of grinding or sliding that a true overthrust would produce. This discrepancy cannot be explained by overthrusting. (Scott M. Huse, The collapse of Evolution, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 15-16).
During mining operations in a quarry in Lompoc, California in 1976, workers discovered a fossilized skeleton of a baleen whale. What is so unusual about this discovery is that the whale fossil wasn’t lying horizontally, but vertically–standing on its tail! The entire fossil is about eighty feet long and was gradually exposed as the quarry was being mined. The whale had to have been buried quickly to become fossilized, otherwise the skeleton would have decomposed. This proves that the huge amounts of sediment surrounding the whale were not deposited over eons of time, but very quickly. (Dennis Gordon Lindsay, The Birth of Planet Earth and the Age of the Universe, Dallas: Christ for the Nations, 1993, p. 18-20.)
A 75-foot trail of human footprints have been found in Tanzania in a layer of volcanic ash, which was dated at 3.75 million years old. T. D. White in describing the footprints said, “Make no mistake about it … they are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn’t be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.” (D. Johanson and M. A. Edey, Lucy the Beginnings of Humankind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 250, as sited in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Duane T. Gish).
Human footprints and been found in the same strata as dinosaur prints in the Paluxy River Bed in Glen Rose, Texas. The prints are within a few yards of each other, and sometimes even cross each other. Dr. Camp from the University of California and Dr. G. Westcott of Ypsilanti, Michigan have pronounced them genuine. The human footprints continue under shale that has been bulldozed away, proving they could not have been carved in the formation. (Winkie Pratney, Creation or Evolution? The Fossil Record, Pretty Good Printing, 1982).
Human skulls, gold chains, and an iron pot have been found in coal. In the coal collection in the Mining Academy in Freiberg, there is a human skull composed of brown coal and manganiferous and phosphatie limonite. This skull was described by Karsten and Dechen in 1842. (Otto Stutzer, Geology of Coal, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1940, p. 271). In 1889 a Mrs S.W. Culp broke open a chunk of coal and found a 10 inch, eight-carat gold chain embedded within. (“A Necklace of a Prehistoric God”, Morrisonville Times, Illinois, June 11, 1891).
Two fossilized human skeletons have been found in Cretaceous sandstone at Moab, Utah. The fossils were found in strata supposedly 65-100 million years before humans were said to have evolved. (Burdick, C.L., “Discovery of human skeletons in Cretaceous Formation”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, September 1973, pp. 109-110.)
Dinosaur fossils have been found 400 miles from the South Pole. The polar plains now scoured by frigid winds and sub-zero temperatures were warm enough 200 million years ago to be the home to large meat-eating dinosaurs, according to researchers. It was the first dinosaur found on the mainland of Antarctica. (Associated Press, May 6, 1994).
[VI. PROTEINS, DNA, AND THE CELL]
To understand the origin of life, we examine life’s basic building blocks, the interrelationships between them, and their origin. There have been many “origin of life” experiments trying to duplicate a scenario where life could have arisen on the earth millions of years ago by chance. These experiments have ultimately one goal: to justify a materialistic philosophy that excludes God. But, the very nature of their experiments proves the opposite, that it takes creative intervention to produce the building blocks of life!
Is it possible for atoms to materialize, organize themselves, and combine to form living things without the influence of an intelligent creator? We have considered the effects of the second law of thermodynamics, which shows that the natural tendency in the universe is toward decay, disorganization and death. In the physics and chemistry of life, is that law reversed? If we use the laws of probability and chance, we can show what it would take for life to form independently of God.
[The Improbability of Probability]
To understand probability, let us look at a few examples. The probability of a flipped coin coming up heads is 1 chance out of 2. What is the chance of three coins coming up heads? It is one out of 2 X 2 X 2 or eight. As we increase the number of coins flipped, the probability of getting all heads decreases rapidly. With ten coins, the probability is 1 in 1024. With 20 coins, it is 1 in 1,048,576.
[The Left­ Handed Amino Acid Dilemma]
Let us now apply the principles of probability to the problem of origin of life. Proteins are an important family of molecules that make up life. They are gigantic in comparison to ordinary chemicals found outside life. Typically, a protein is 400 to 1000 times larger and more complex than the molecules that make up gasoline. A protein is a polymer, which is a chain of components all linked together. We call these links in the chain amino acids.
If you chemically build amino acids in a test tube, they will form into equal amounts of “right handed” and “left handed” isomers. This concerns the three dimensional shape of the molecules. Chemically, the right handed and left handed forms react the same, and are indistinguishable apart from their three dimensional orientation. The two forms are mirror images of each other.
There are twenty different amino acids used as building blocks in proteins. The sequence of the amino acids and the three dimensional shape determine the function of the protein. Therefore, let us look at what it would take to create a functional protein or enzyme.
A typical protein is made up of a chain of 445 left-handed amino acids. No protein found in nature contains right handed amino acids. Though origin of life experiments produce equal mixtures of both, all proteins use only the left-handed variety. Therefore, in order for the original protein to be formed, all amino acids used out of the original mixture needed to be left-handed.
We can now apply the laws of probability to this. The chances of an average protein consisting of 445 amino acids forming by chance are one chance out of 2410 or 10123 (35 of the amino acids would be glycine, which is symmetrical).
To illustrate the magnitude of this impossibility, let’s have a contest. Suppose we give a snail moving at the speed of one inch every million years the task of moving the entire earth atom by atom over to the other side of the universe and back.
Then, imagine the length of time it takes light to travel one millimeter, and a million proteins forming in that length of time hoping to form one protein with all left-handed amino acids. Guess what! The snail would win, many millions of times over before even one left-handed protein would be formed!
Presume now that we can make amino acids ambidextrous for the moment and ignore this problem for the evolutionists’ sake. We now have a problem making sure that the amino acids are in the right order to give the protein its function. Each amino acid has a characteristic that forms weak bonds, giving the protein its three dimensional shape. It is this shape that gives the protein its activity in living systems.
If we disturb a protein with an outside force such as heat, acid, or any other abnormal environment, the three-dimensional shape of the protein will be upset, and it will lose its activity. When this happens, we say the protein is denatured. Therefore, a protein may have all its amino acids left-handed and in proper sequence and still be useless because the three dimensional shape is not correct.
There are twenty amino acids that make up the basic building blocks of the protein. The order is very important, like the code of a computer program, or a sentence in a book. If just one amino acid is out of sequence, it changes the entire structure of the protein, just like changing a word in a sentence.
This is the effect of a mutation. It weakens the protein’s function, usually to the point where it no longer does its job. The origin of disease is simple, it is a departure from the perfect creation of God caused by mutations. Mutations are a degenerative process and not the driving force evolutionists seek to explain the origin of life.
Let us assume in spite of the incredible odds that we now have a protein meeting every requirement, with left-handed amino acids, proper amino acid sequence and three dimensional structure. The next problem to face is configuring the least number of proteins, needed with DNA and associated molecules to form a living cell.
Scientists estimate that 238 proteins would be the absolute minimum number that would be needed to form life. Is it possible to bring together that many proteins and interrelate them in such a way to continuously process food and energy? A problem in doing this is even if we concentrated the right proteins together in the same place at once, they still would have to be configured in the proper structure in order for life to exist.
Coppedge, in his book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible, makes several probability calculations concerning life coming about by chance. Giving evolution all kinds of concessions, he comes up with the probability for the first cell to evolve by accident as one chance in 1029345. It would take an 80-page book just to print that number. In comparison, the number of inches across the known universe is 1028. Statistically, scientists consider 1 chance in 1050 to be impossible. From these figures, you can be certain that the evolution of the cell is impossible!
Some have thought that viruses are precursors to living cells, but to reproduce, viruses need living cells as hosts! So even if a virus happened to appear by chance, it would have been the last unless there was a cell nearby whose reproductive mechanism it could exploit.
[More Left-Handed Right-Handed Problems]
Found throughout life are other examples of where life prefers one choice out of many equally possible chemical designs. Sugars occur naturally only in the right-handed form in life, yet have the same synthesis problems that amino acids have.
Researchers conducted an experiment synthesizing protein-like chains using equal mixtures of left handed and right handed amino acids, then introduced them into a cell. The cell excised out the right handed variety, often replacing them with the left handed type!
Examples of CIS and TRANS configurations
Lipids present an even worse problem in that life uses only the cis configuration though the trans configuration is chemically more stable. That is why if you make lipids in the test tube, you will get much more yield of the trans variety rather than the cis.
Interrelationships Between Cell Components
The cell has a unique manufacturing process that has a standardized way of mass-producing all the components needed to sustain life. The DNA molecule is the master template, the pattern for all the components that make up life. The RNA molecule is produced from this master template. This in turn becomes an assembly line. Each set of three nucleotides on the RNA molecule is a code read by another large protein complex known as a ribosome. The ribosome proceeds down the RNA molecule, reading every three nucleotides to decide what amino acid to place in the growing protein chain.
The interesting part of this whole process is that the product, a protein, is necessary for each reaction along the chain to proceed. The DNA molecule cannot form without its corresponding enzyme, DNA polymerase. Yet, DNA polymerase is a product of this manufacturing process. Enzymes also catalyze the other reactions occurring in the process. Each cell component has its own niche and purpose, without which the cell would die.
Therefore, this whole process cannot take place until all the components are together, integrated to the point where they react with one another properly. This is truly a design by God. One marvels at the systems engineering required to put in place such a complex manufacturing process.
A systems integrator can tell you that it takes painstaking design and attention to detail to get even two or three programs or computer systems to work together. Suppose we created one computer program, and altered it one letter, command, or section at a time at random to produce another computer program. Would we eventually end up with an integrated system? Experience tells us otherwise. So even if we started with DNA, RNA or a protein fully functional, and one of them was able to catalyze reactions all by itself or replicate itself, it would not explain the integrated systems we observe in the cell. Random processes cannot produce information and function. Yet, when we observe life, we see perfect system integration, except where it is damaged by mutation. The system is a three-dimensional computer code with function and meaning in all of the dimensions, maximizing function in a minimum amount of space. This makes modern object-oriented computer programming, which is still one-dimensional and linear in scope, primitive in comparison. There is also no vestige of any other legacy coding system apparent in life.
Suppose a scientist were to break open the contents of dead cells and place the remains in a flask. With meticulous work, he might be able to get a few of the reactions to go for a moment, but he would not be able to resurrect life in the cells. If he subjected them to ultraviolet light or zapped them with lightning, it would cause more damage. If he left it alone for a length of time, the molecules would decay, not evolve. Yet, supposedly, all of the chemicals needed for life are there!
The idea of “cellular ecology” reflects not only scientific principles but also Christian principles. In the body of Christ, each part has a function and purpose, none of which is more important than the other, and without which life would cease. Similarly, the cell functions the same way, the body functions the same way, and the environment functions the same way. Divide the cell, and the cell will die. Divide the body, and the body will die. Cut off a portion of the environment, and the environment will die.
[Induction and Repression]
A function of enzymes is to regulate the normal processes occurring in the organism such as digestion and the production of energy. This regulation takes place through the systems of induction and repression. Repression takes place when the product of a reaction binds to the enzyme, forcing it into an inactive state, effectively shutting off the reaction when enough products are produced. Co-repression acts similarly, but here the product binds to the repressor, which then turns on the repression process. Induction takes place when the product of one reaction starts up another. How could such processes originate, except by a wise creator?
Let us review now the conditions necessary for life to come about by chance through the process of evolution. The following is a list of the steps that would need to take place.
1. First, the chemicals needed to produce life had to be available in the atmosphere to make both amino acids and nucleotides.
2. To make both amino acids and nucleotides, an atmosphere without oxygen is necessary.
3. Amino acids would have to be purified in the left handed form.
4. The amino acids would have to be linked up in a chain in the right sequence to form an active protein.
5. A corresponding DNA gene would have to be synthesized with the necessary code to produce the protein.
6. The protein manufacturing process would have to be in place with transfer RNA, messenger RNA, and ribosomes for the protein to be mass produced.
7. The enzyme, DNA polymerase, would have to be available in order for DNA to form.
8. One enzyme is not enough to sustain life. In order for life to function, there would need to be more than 200 enzymes with their corresponding DNA, RNA, and manufacturing systems functioning together in a system.
[Mutations Can Be Hazardous To Your Health]
The theory of evolution is heavily dependent upon mutations to explain the vast variety of plants and animals. Let’s examine this idea to find out if beneficial mutations really occur and whether it is a valid explanation for evolution.
Biochemists have identified several mechanisms where cells repair damaged genes. The case that is best understood is where a gene is damaged by ultraviolet radiation when two adjacent thymine links in the DNA molecule bind together. If left unrepaired, this would kill the cell. A series of enzymes especially designed to eat away this part of the DNA replace them with a new, correct set of nucleotides. But if this repair mechanism does not work, a backup biochemical pathway takes over and repairs the problem.
It is this secondary pathway that may cause a mutation by replacing the thymines with another nucleotide. This normally does not occur. Consider this: what is the origin of these repair processes? Truly, it cannot be a product of an accident. When a mutation occurs, it is usually due to a mistake in repair of damaged genes, or a mistake in the reading of the DNA template. Such mutations are either recessive, nonfunctional, lethal, repaired, or weeded out.
What would it take for someone to build a machine where if anything went wrong, repair processes would occur automatically? Suppose also, if something went wrong with the automatic repair process in that machine, a backup mechanism took over the repair process. I know of no such machine in existence devised by man, yet evolutionists believe that this process came about by chance in life. I would like to see car manufacturers come up with process that will automatically repair blown gaskets, smash-ups, engine failures, and replace worn parts. That process is already built into life!
Another type of mutation occurs when strings of nucleotides replace sections of a DNA molecule. This would be like inserting one sentence or paragraph at random in this book, changing its meaning. If that were to occur, would it make sense? Of course not, unless some intelligent person was guiding the selection of the paragraph. Natural selection is a weeding out of information that is not useful to life, and cannot produce complex systems. I believe instead in devolution, which is the decay and death from a perfect creation marred by sin.
To believe that mutations are the origin of all the diversity in life is to believe that random chance results in a beneficial change. Evolutionists themselves do not believe that. Otherwise, I’d like them to submit to an experiment. How would you like to have your genes randomized?
All right, evolutionists, line up! How many volunteers do we have who want to irradiate their genes in the hope that somehow it will result in a higher degree of evolution? Perhaps you might evolve lungs that will breathe polluted air or a body that will resist polluted water? Would you be ready to undergo such an experiment?
[Enzymes]
Another example of God’s creative power is in the design of enzymes. Enzymes are proteins, used as a catalyst in chemical reactions in the body. Enzymes speed up reactions by acting as a machine to digest or break apart certain chemicals. The chemical or food particle attaches to the enzyme, bending into the position where it will react the best.
The processes of induction and repression regulate the rate and amount of digestion that takes place. Depending on the amount of energy and food needed, processes turn on and off like machines.
How does an evolutionist explain how this process came about? I have never seen anyone attempt to give an explanation. The problem of interrelationships is simply ignored. Chance cannot produce these intricate relationships. At the molecular level, as there is between animals, these interrelationships occur throughout all parts of the organism, much like a microscopic ecology. Each piece has its function, a job to do. Death would result if any mistakes occur in these operations.
Art F. Poettcker outlines a list of seventeen problems evolutionists cannot answer concerning mutations, genes, and life at the molecular level: 8
1. Structural changes in chromosomes are most often deleterious and at best only produce variation within a kind.
2. Observed mutations have resulted in changes only in existing traits.
3. Mutations are harmful or useless.
4. The mutation rate is very low.
5. Homozygous mutants would tend to eliminate a species.
6. The more complex an organism, the less chance there is for mutations to occur of advantage even under new environmental conditions.
7. Any mutation is likely to upset the delicate gene complex.
8. The origin of dominance does not have a suitable explanation.
9. Reverse mutations add to the problem of time required formulations.
10. Polyploidy is an evolutionary dead end.
11. Chromosome number and DNA content vary widely between alleged evolutionary levels.
12. Even allowing for beneficial mutations, natural selection maybe too slow to account for alleged evolution.
13. Too rapid a rate of natural selection may eliminate the entire population.
14. Most favorable mutations are eliminated from a population.
15. Genetic drift operates opposite to selection.
16. Natural selection limits its effect to populations.
17. Mutation and natural selection do not have a means to operate upon chemical molecules.
Any one of these problems is enough to cause us to think twice about evolution at the molecular level. The scientific principles of genetics, when you get down to the facts, demonstrate creation much more than they do evolution.
Let’s look at what happens during the healing process. I believe that natural healing is supernatural healing taken for granted! The reason I believe this is when you examine what takes place when a cut finger heals, or a virus or microorganism invades the body, you find amazing processes at work to quickly remedy the problem. If you take a sledge hammer to your car, do you expect it to undent itself? Then why do we take healing for granted, not acknowledging God’s intervention when we experience it, even with an ordinary cut?
Consider the antibody. It has a fixed chemical makeup that gives it its form, but it has ends with a variable amino acid structure that change to attach to foreign bodies and like a microbial bouncer, the antibody throws out the offender. How does the theory of evolution explain the origin of healing and antibodies? Without the purpose of God’s creative power behind it, it doesn’t make sense. [The Cleansing Blood]
God gives us a perfect illustration of salvation through the shedding of the blood of Christ at Calvary. Some people do not understand the meaning of this; after all, doesn’t blood stain things, not cleanse? But when we look at the function of blood in the body, we discover that it does act as a cleansing agent, ridding the body of toxins and wastes. If you apply a tourniquet around your wrist for a few minutes, you will experience the discomfort that follows the buildup of these toxins in your tissues, since the blood cannot carry them away.
After the blood picks up the waste products in the body, it delivers them to the kidney, which is the most efficient waste disposal machine on the earth. The kidney filters these waste products, breaking them down to be recycled if possible or ejected. What the blood does for the human body is a perfect illustration of what the blood of Christ does for the body of Christ. It cleanses us from all sin; again defined as the waste, poisons and junk our lives produce. Look at life’s processes and marvel! Just because we can describe them, it doesn’t mean we’ve explained their origin! Instead, we need to acknowledge God’s hand in their creation.

To find out more truthful and insightful information about the many hoaxes and frauds claiming to be factual scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution (hoaxes such as Java Man, The Alleged Horse Series, Oliver the Chimp, Iron Hammer in Limestone, The Archaeoraptor Fraud, Haeckel’s Fake Drawings, Dinosaur and Human Footprints, and many more!), or if you’re interested in the amazing true-life report about the capture of a pre-historic fish in 1938 that was supposedly millions and millions of years old and thought to be extinct–yet was found alive and still exactly how it was in the so-called “dinosaur age” without ANY forms or signs of evolution taking place, then just type in this webpage address http://www.cornerstonechurchonline.com/biblestu.… and scroll all the way down the page until you come to the fascinating section called “Answers to Evolution.”

Or if you really want to discover for yourself the serious mistakes, miscalculations, and misconceptions evolutionists have when trying to calculate how old the earth is (including insightful sections dedicated to Historical Geology, “Fault Finding”, Early Man, and much more!) then just type in this webpage address http://www.rae.org/revevchp.html and you can find out absolutely everything and anything you really want to know about the truth behind the bogus theory of evolution!

Thanks for your time, and explore the REAL truth behind the incorrect philosophical myth of evolution. Take care and God bless you!

Comment #589

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 2, 2004 9:56 PM (e)

Hey, Teri, you want fries with that spam?

Ever hear of plagiarism?

Comment #590

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 2, 2004 11:46 PM (e)

Response to Teri’s comment is available here.

Comment #595

Posted by Mark Perakh on April 3, 2004 8:20 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #2790

Posted by Chris on May 25, 2004 8:32 AM (e)

Back on terms of use (which appears the appropriate subject matter for this section): Would it be a safe assumption that commercial advertisement would also be deleted? This can be a hair tricky, as most of Kent Hovind’s replies to challenges are “I cover that in my video,” but is probably an appropriate rule insofar as this is a topic-specific blog.

Comment #2791

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 25, 2004 8:36 AM (e)

Yes, commercial advertisements can be (and have been) removed under item (2).

If a commercial advertisement actually somehow is topical, it would likely be left in place. That circumstance hasn’t cropped up yet.

Comment #3635

Posted by steve on June 9, 2004 11:53 PM (e)

The ‘Teri’ comment above is inconsiderate creationist shit. It blotted out a lot of text of real discussion.

Comment #3641

Posted by Jon Fleming on June 10, 2004 9:24 AM (e)

Actually, Teri’s post is copyrighted material: http://www.rae.org/revev6.html

Comment #3653

Posted by Russell on June 10, 2004 11:54 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'url'