• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Top Ten: Myths about Evolution

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Myth 10: Computer Simulations Prove Evolution

Myth 9: Homologous (Similar) Structures Show Past Evolution

Myth 8: There Are Clear Transitional Fossils

Myth 7: Ape-Human DNA Similarities

Myth 6: Apemen and Artistic License

Myth 5: Bad Design

Myth 4: Vestigial Organs

Myth 3: Antibiotic Resistance

Myth 2: Natural Selection Is Evolution in Action

Myth 1: All Scientists Agree

https://answersingenesis.org/theory...al&utm_campaign=facebooktwittergooglelinkedin
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Myth 10: Computer Simulations Prove Evolution

Myth 9: Homologous (Similar) Structures Show Past Evolution

Myth 8: There Are Clear Transitional Fossils

Myth 7: Ape-Human DNA Similarities

Myth 6: Apemen and Artistic License

Myth 5: Bad Design

Myth 4: Vestigial Organs

Myth 3: Antibiotic Resistance

Myth 2: Natural Selection Is Evolution in Action

Myth 1: All Scientists Agree

https://answersingenesis.org/theory...al&utm_campaign=facebooktwittergooglelinkedin

Another myth is that the Bible supports and teaches evolution!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We know life changes over time. Many of the birds that were known to exist on the Hawaiian Islands are now not found. They are extinct as far as those who publish such lists know. We also know that animals found in the the fossil record, like Dinosaur National Park in Colorado, are extinct as far as we know. So can we call the extinction of life forms evolution?

And based again on the fossil records, this time adding our theories about when the fossil record was laid down, show life forms in later records that were not found in earlier records, thus the theory that differing life forms come into being over time. But this is based on sketchy science. Basically we do not know the time sequence of the earth more than about 5000 years ago.

So the fact of evolution, life has changed over time, is not challenged by the Bible. But the theory of evolution, life evolves from non-life, given a warm swamp and a lightning strike, is science fiction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The wrong assumption is that the layers are based purely on time and weather when in fact much of it was layed down all at once in a world wide flood
 

blackbird

Active Member
The wrong assumption is that the layers are based purely on time and weather when in fact much of it was layed down all at once in a world wide flood

I have a man in church who brought me a gift------they were doing some excavation on a construction site not far from Tuscaloosa, AL---I believe, testing for Shale coal-----he gave me a few fossilized sea shells found in a excavator dig

They found the fossils-----60 feet below the land surface-----300 miles from the Gulf of Mexico

How'd that fossil get there??

:type::type:
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
I have a man in church who brought me a gift------they were doing some excavation on a construction site not far from Tuscaloosa, AL---I believe, testing for Shale coal-----he gave me a few fossilized sea shells found in a excavator dig

They found the fossils-----60 feet below the land surface-----300 miles from the Gulf of Mexico

How'd that fossil get there??

:type::type:

http://www.paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space&sectionnav=state&name=Alabama
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have a man in church who brought me a gift------they were doing some excavation on a construction site not far from Tuscaloosa, AL---I believe, testing for Shale coal-----he gave me a few fossilized sea shells found in a excavator dig

They found the fossils-----60 feet below the land surface-----300 miles from the Gulf of Mexico

How'd that fossil get there??

:type::type:

They got there by a great flood that moved and changed the landscape of the entire earth contrary to what inti-God scienctists want us to believe.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
We know life changes over time. Many of the birds that were known to exist on the Hawaiian Islands are now not found. They are extinct as far as those who publish such lists know. We also know that animals found in the the fossil record, like Dinosaur National Park in Colorado, are extinct as far as we know. So can we call the extinction of life forms evolution?

And based again on the fossil records, this time adding our theories about when the fossil record was laid down, show life forms in later records that were not found in earlier records, thus the theory that differing life forms come into being over time. But this is based on sketchy science. Basically we do not know the time sequence of the earth more than about 5000 years ago.

So the fact of evolution, life has changed over time, is not challenged by the Bible. But the theory of evolution, life evolves from non-life, given a warm swamp and a lightning strike, is science fiction.

How does the appearance or disappearance of a species indicate evolution?

Scripture tells us:

Genesis 1:20-25
20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


There is no scientific evidence of change from one kind to another.
 

Jedi Knight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Evolution was created to try destroy the God of the bible because they do not want Him to be their judge.
 

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree!!!!:thumbsup:

They have the wrong name for it!... It is not Evolution but Devolution? Brethren I'm here to tell you I'm not in the process of Evolving but Devolving daily at an accelerated rate. The next time an someone tells you they are an Evolutionist look them straight in the face and say "I'm a Devolutionist and I guarantee you they will do a double take, What did you say? I've done it and it works. Understand? You read it and let the Preacher explain it... Ecclesiastes 12: 1-7:smilewinkgrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
They have the wrong name for it!... It is not Evolution but Devolution? Brethren I'm here to tell you I'm not in the process of Evolving but Devolving daily at an accelerated rate. The next time an someone tells you they are an Evolutionist look them straight in the face and say "I'm a Devolutionist and I guarantee you they will do a double take, What did you say? I've done it and it works. Understand? You read it and let the Preacher explain it... Ecclesiastes 12: 1-7:smilewinkgrin:

Genesis 2:16, 17 and Second Law of Thermodynamics!
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
Genesis 2:16, 17 and Second Law of Thermodynamics!

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Evolution versus a basic law of nature

Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

law of science: basic, unchanging principle of nature; a scientifically observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion).

thermodynamics: the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.1

Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Decaying buildings. Massive structures may appear to be capable of lasting almost forever, but they will not. The need for ongoing repairs stems, in part, from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Scene from the ORIGINS motion picture series.)
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.

2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.3

Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Cells and blood vessels—scene from the ORIGINS motion picture series.
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.4

Copyrighted, Films for Christ. Artist: Paul S. Taylor.
Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder. (Illustration from the ORIGINS series)
Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.5

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

Has the 2nd Law Been Circumvented? No, says expert Frank A. Greco:

"An answer can readily be given to the question, 'Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?' NOT YET." 8

No experimental evidence disproves it, say physicists G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos:

"There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries…" 9

Creationist Duane Gish comments:

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley) 10

Emmett Williams, Ph.D:

"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted." 11

If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward “disarrangedness” brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found.


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, says you are wrong. Following is an excerpt from Science and the Bible by Dr. Morris:

Evolution Versus Entropy

These indications add emphasis to a principle already alluded to several times, namely, that deterioration or degeneration rather than developmental evolution is the universal law of biology. As we have seen, there is no real evidence at all for progressive evolution but much evidence for disintegration and extinction or, at best, biologic stability.

We have already seen in the previous chapter that this law of degeneration, or entropy increase, is universally operative throughout the physical and chemical realms; it now seems also to pervade the biologic realm. In fact, this truth is beginning so to disturb evolutionists that a number of books and papers have been published in recent years attempting to “harmonize” the concept of evolution (increasing complexity) with the entropy principle (decreasing complexity).

These attempts have been futile. It is not possible to equate deterioration with development. Evolution and entropy are both supposed to represent universal laws of change, but each is the opposite of the other, so they cannot both be true. Entropy represents a law of science, to the extent there is such a thing, whereas evolution represents the wishful thinking of those trying to explain the existence of life apart from God and has no scientific basis at all.

More and more it appears that there is a degenerative principle pervading all nature. Some have called this the “law of morpholysis” (which means “breaking-down of structure”), but the Bible explains it as the great curse placed on the ground because of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:17-20). According to this principle, “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” under “the of corruption (or ‘decay’)” (Romans 8:22, 21). There is a universal tendency from the highly organized to the disorganized. Never is there an inherent, natural, undirected, unaided trend toward an increase of organized complexity. The natural tendency is always degenerative. Prior to the curse, entropy, like energy, was “conserved” with decay processes balanced by growth processes. Now, however, decay prevails.

In biology, an important example is found in the agencies supposed to bring about evolution; that is, gene mutations. All such changes are harmful (or neutral at best), because they represent a breaking down of the highly structured arrangement of the genes in the germ cell. This most likely accounts for the fact that most of the living creatures of the present are represented in the fossil record of the past by larger, more highly developed members of the same kind. It probably also accounts for the extinction of many former kinds of living things, as well as for the various ‘imperfect adaptations” and “vestigial organs” (to the extent there really are any such imperfections and vestiges), which evolutionists still cite (unrealistically) as evidence for evolution.

Evolutionists still may insist that the law of increasing entropy does not preclude evolution since biological systems are “open” systems and can draw enough energy from the sun to support an upward evolution. That is nonsense, however, since the equations of thermodynamics clearly show that an influx of raw heat energy (as from the sun) into any open system (say, like the earth) will increase the entropy (or decay) of that system more rapidly than if it were an isolated system.

Under certain special conditions (not available to evolution, as far as all evidence goes), the organization of an open system may be increased for a time by the entrance of external ordering energy, or information. Examples would be the growth of a plant from a seed or the construction of a building from various structural components. Any such growth process, however, must have a directing program (such as the genetic code in the DNA of the seed or the blueprint for the building), as well as an energy conversion mechanism of some sort to convert the raw energy of the solar heat into the specific work of building up the structure (such as the amazingly complex mechanism photosynthesis for the seed, or the machinery, fuels, muscles, and minds of the builders in the case of the building). The imaginary evolutionary growth of complex plants and animals from a primeval cell (and that from nonliving chemicals in a hypothetical primordial soup), however, has neither a directing program nor conversion mechanism to accomplish this. It must rely on time and chance, but time and chance break things down—they don’t build them up.

No one has ever seen anything evolve, no one knows how evolution works, the fossil record shows no evolutionary transitions taking place, and the basic laws of science show it to be impossible. Yet evolutionists insist that this is “science” and should be taught as proved fact to school children.

Science and the Bible
by Henry Morris - See more at: http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/evolution_entropy.html#sthash.9A9f50Cq.dpuf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

go2church

Active Member
Site Supporter
How would your faith change if evolution was proven, hypothetically speaking of course?

If you are thinking that the whole thing is undermined and Jesus is a liar (or some variation of that) than there is a serious problem with your faith.
 
Top