Why not check out a very well written summary with a more scientific slant than here of the top ten problems with evolution by Casey Luskin here. I suggest,there just is no viable option other than creationism.
And for Young Earth Creationists,
Scripture is infallible, so true data can only illuminate it further. An intransigence in your belief that your interpretation is correct may be a form of pride, the worst of all sins? Or making an idol of your own hermeneutics? A misguided belief that accepting Gap theory is a test of your faith?
1. From a quote by James Tour here
2. From James Tour’s web site here
Why Aren’t the Wrong Proteins Formed ? Why Doesn’t the Mutation Happen Somewhere Else in the Genome? Why not a wrong option, wrong place and wrong time?
I like statistics but I know they can be deceptive. The birthday paradox is one example. How many people have to be in a room to get an ‘evens’ (50 % chance) that two of them have the same birthday (date not year)? Most people tend to come up with 182/3 people as it is ½ of 365 days. The answer is counterintuitive and is just 23 people. So, if there are more than 23 people together then you have got a better than evens chance that two have the same birthday. Most people do not believe it but you can see the rationale well explained here. It is a paradox that fools most people.
Likewise, a common and foolish betting technique at roulette is go for 50/50 bets of black or red (I am ignoring the presence of ‘0’ and ‘00’ on roulette tables for ease of odds calculation) and if you lose, then just double the same bet next spin on the same colour , then keep doing it until you win. The ‘law of averages’ means after what would seem to be a relatively low number of spins the right colour will come up and you will win in the end. But records show that there was once a documented instance of 32 consecutive reds here. It seems counterintuitive to have this many but again a study of the odds of this event show there is approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power 9, (that is 10 with nine noughts after it ) or 1 chance in 10 billion of it happening. Now with all the roulette games that have occurred since its invention then 32 consecutive reds now seems reasonable. But at what stage do odds become so unlikely that you could deem them impossible? (Strictly speaking impossible is the wrong term because there is still a possibility.)
The chances of getting a 100 reds or blacks consecutively in roulette is about 1 in 10 to the power 30
The chances of getting a 1000 reds or blacks consecutively in roulette is about 1 in 10 to the power 300
It seems logical to me to know that the 100 consecutive and certainly the 1000 are just not going to happen, no matter how long you play for so, I put my blurred impossibility line somewhere around these values.
Winning the British National Lottery (Lotto) 26 times (on the trot with one ‘go’ and the same numbers each time and if you do not get it right each time you start again): The chances are about 1 in 10 to the power 192.
That also is, as far as I am concerned, never going to happen. How can I say this? I am not sure why I can, but I am confident that at some stage odds become absurd and an an impossibility.
More on Kinds here
Smoke and mirrors
Deception is the name
name of the game
? (sneak things in? Name -
Evolution? You Sure?
With great insight, Todd Wood here points out that God, through His creation, communicates with us. His creation utters speech and reveals His attributes, with its beauty and elegance. It is part of the reason for the creation.
Picture #1 The archaeopteryx, what do you see? A primitive transitional animal between dinosaurs and birds or a beautifully designed creature perfectly ‘fitting in’ with its ecosystem, uttering speech?
Picture #2 A mud skipper. What do you see? A primitive transitional animal between fish and mammals or a beautifully designed creature perfectly suited to its ecosystem, uttering speech?
Picture #3 #4 #5. The three British woodpeckers (two of which frequent my garden I am pleased to say). What do you see? Variation within a biblical kind, all 200 or so woodpeckers descending from an original woodpecker ‘kind’ and diversifying within this created kind but remaining woodpeckers, all uttering speech? Or, do you see proof that fish could become humans by this same process extrapolated over millions of years?
I suggest the answer to all of these questions depends on your paradigm view and not science.
Is beauty and elegance really just a lucky side effect of chance mutations?
Picture #7 -
Woodpeckers and Dogs
Chuck Missler brilliantly used a giraffe here and green woodpecker here as examples of the absurdity of random mutations causing macro changes.
Concerning the woodpecker, here is the list of adaptions Missler described the green woodpecker possessing and I have added a few also. It has a very strong beak with a ‘shock absorber’ between the beak and skull, a chisel shape to the beak for wood cutting, a spongy padding around the brain, a brain packed closer to the skull, an extended hyoid bone apparatus to facilitate the tongue to extend great lengths, a membrane to stop the eyes popping out, a sticky tongue, a very long tongue with a barb on the end and some of the tongue wraps around the skull and attaches under the eye socket. It also has different than usual tail feathers that can act like a tripod support. The toes are two forward and two back and not three to one. They can make a drumming sound to attract partners. They have extra and differently designed feathers to cover their nostrils to prevent sawdust inhalation and the list goes on…
As a dentist very well acquainted with the amazing design of the tongue,(Multiple origins and no insertion), it is inconceivable that the origin and anatomy of the tongue could change, the complexities of such a design change are clearly not down to chance any design change would, I believe, result in an early death.
I want you to consider any bird of similar size to a woodpecker acquiring these adaptions. Talk me through the process. Consider the odds and the likelihood of these changes. What are the calculable actual odds of these multiple protein systems forming randomly in the right place for the right bird with the other synchronised mutations? Do we ever see such macro changes occurring in one go? Do partial changes give a benefit? Does ½ a protein convey an advantage? Why didn’t the random mutations form a different protein or mess up an existing one? Why don’t humans have occasional similar multi protein genetic mutational changes? Random does not possess intelligence it does not work to a design, or driver, does not know it’s surroundings, does not know available food sources and does not have a beginning or an end in mind… but God does.
I am assuming the evolutionist stance that all dogs evolved from one dog like/wolf like creature. I am happy to go along with this. So, by natural selection or selective breeding all dogs from the Pekinese to the Great Dane are produced from these lupine ancestors. Evolutionists describe this process and say ‘well look how wolves evolved into all manner of dogs, so extending this, ‘you can easily see how fish could evolve into humans’.
Well errr….. no. I do not see it that way, the process is bounded. Dogs will remain dogs. This is an unjustified extrapolation . Evolutionists describe this as evolution producing new traits but in reality it is, I believe, the exact opposite, information and potential is lost and not gained from the genetically rich first created ‘kind’ wolf.
I suggest that random mutations do not create new traits but rather selective breeding eliminates some possibilities and brings forward other ‘hidden’ traits. The potential was there in the original wolf all along. The progeny have less information and potential. No new traits are added. If this was random then it should be easy to go back the other way from dogs back to original dog like/wolf like creature which has not been observed. Or, consider Pekinese dogs, using just Pekinese dogs and their offspring, it should, according to evolutionary theory, be quite easy to selectively breed to get to Great Danes, well..;. good luck with that!
God does not appear to do the ‘same’. He appears to build in change. It seems entirely plausible that all woodpeckers originate from the same core woodpecker. But, consider these woodpeckers again, in a staggering design capability God has built in a potential to diversify within a ‘kind’ to a present day 200 or so types of woodpecker. Each a thing of matching beauty and different from its cousin, different colour schemes, slightly different attributes, perfectly suited for slightly different ecosystems. Incredible.
I think further new species will appear too. Change with beauty is constant in God’s creation.
The Evolution Paradox-
‘Proteins form by random mutations, small and subtle changes over time each resulting in benefits to the organism and hence they are more likely to survive and pass these changes on’-
Firstly, for a mutation to work it must be beneficial. For some proteins they must form in full to be of use. Half an insulin molecule does not regulate blood sugar levels half as well as a full molecule, it does not regulate it at all. Likewise, haemoglobin does not carry oxygen unless fully formed. (This is described as irreducible complexity)
So these proteins must form in their entirety in ‘one go’. There are 20 amino acids, so, again assuming random presentation of these amino acids the probability of them forming complex proteins used in the building blocks of all life forms can easily be calculated. A ‘1 in 20’ chance of getting the correct amino acid sequence with each addition. Proteins can be made up of many of these amino acids.
Insulin has 51 amino acids, there are approximately 10 to the power 66 chances of getting the sequence right by randomly selecting amino acids. That is 1 chance in 10 with 65 noughts after it. Some blood clotting proteins have over 2000 amino acids. e.g. Factor 8 the anti-
If you do the the calculation for these bigger proteins then most calculators can not handle it and come back with infinity. It becomes too high for the average one to work out. It becomes a number 10 to the power 2600+. These are impossible odds by anyone's standards. These are ‘worse’ odds than the roulette and lottery odds above.
To elaborate these numbers in more detail Chuck Missler (here) brilliantly chose to compare these numbers with other high numbers that are easier to appreciate, I have extended them a little, all the following are some very big numbers.
Other High Numbers to Think About and What Odds Mean
Number of atoms in the cosmos: 10 to the power 80 (a 10 with 80 noughts after it)
Number of stars in the cosmos:10 to the power 24 (a 10 with 24 noughts after it)
Number of seconds since the supposed Big Bang (15 billion years):about 10 to the power 18 (a 10 with 18 noughts after it)
Evolutionists tend to emphasise long times and very large numbers to sneak in the idea that given enough time the odds say they will happen. Is it true? So I have picked the very highest number and the very longest time available in the universe. Consider this:
The Biggest Numbers Available
If every single proton, neutron and electron (about 10 to the power 80) in the entire Universe were some kind of protein manufacturer and had a trillion (10 to the power of 12) goes every single second since the beginning of time (about 10 to the power 18 seconds) to create some of these bigger proteins then it would probably not have done it by now. They would only have had 10 to the power of 110 attempts. This falls way short of the bigger proteins likelihood of being randomly formed. This is just one protein. This is a transferable argument to all other components of life let alone putting the pieces together to form something of use in multi-
The whole random mutation driving evolution is another example of counterintuitive statistics. The odds just do not stack up. Even if you look at modifying an existing protein then remember that the modification can be anywhere in the protein and be any of the amino acids and the odds are always just as prohibitive.
This is the game changer, there is nowhere to hide with this information, evolution is done, buried, it’s over, there is no mechanism for evolution that does not fall foul of this odds problem. No evolutionist has come up with an argument against this nor, to their absolute eternal (sadly, maybe literally) shame, do they tend mention it as a flaw to their own argument and theories. Evolutionists who do not tell you this are guilty of bias by omission. When I point this out to my friends I watch, in shock really, as they glaze over and somehow do not want to embrace the basic maths and the consequences of this simple statement of facts. Evolutionists without a mechanism, you got nothin!
As a healthcare worker I must say how shocked I am at all this, the whole of healthcare has moved to evidence based treatments, if there is no evidence for any treatment to be effective you cannot do it. If only the same was true of geology, evolutionary biology and astrophysics too.
If you are new to the creationist v evolutionists debate then ask yourselves why you have not heard this argument before? Evolutionists are well aware of it and they choose not to mention it. Good scientific articles always put both sides of an argument and inform us as to why they take their stance. This is just proteins, remember there are also other components (nucleic acids, lipids and glycans to consider). Every time you hear the term mutation, I suggest, you ask why wasn’t the wrong protein formed or for the wrong place and why not mutate somewhere else in the genome? Note the same questions apply to modifying existing proteins too.
Of course, the evolution of one protein on its own is unlikely to be able to do anything, synchronised mutation must occur to form complex systems and the odds climb even higher and it becomes absurd, yet some of the best minds, the sharpest intellects in the world still believe it ?????
This fascinating subject does, I believe, add more fuel to the creationists arguments, so now it appears that genes can be switched on and off by surrounding or environmental conditions. Of course this just makes another layer of complexity to come about randomly. Why doesn’t the environmental condition switch on or off another gene? Why does the same gene form at the same time as its epigenetic switch? (There go those odds again, they just keep climbing). So, a protein has to form that can ‘sense’ its surroundings and then switch on/off a gene that will result in a benefit to the host organism. Within that environment. This sounds a lot like information and intelligent design. ‘Information always means intelligence.’ See #8 below for more on this Stephen Meyer quote.
Faith, Scripture and Love
Faith in God-
Faith in scripture-
Faith in your own interpretation of Scripture-
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
I think some young-
Faith in Science-
Dictionary.com defined science as
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
(I suggest this too, is a continual process)
Absolute faith in one Scientific Theory-
They say they love science, but I think some evolutionists just love the theory of evolution and its bi-
Deception and Problems With Evolution The last throes of an outdated theory
Now in more detail,
Here are some web sites that say transitional fossils (missing links) are many here here here
Here are some web sites that say there are no transitional fossils at all. here here here
However, it is undisputed that all transitional fossils are disputed and often between palaeontologists themselves. Evolutionists should reveal this. I take the stance that there are no transitional fossils at all but I leave this up to the reader to research themselves on the links above. Certainly, even staunch evolutionists must confess that even if their own missing links are regarded as true there is still a statistically impossibly vast number missing. Creationists consider the transitionals to be variations within a ‘kind’ or just designed that way like the mud skipper and archaeopteryx above.
There are some famous evolutionists who do bravely declare this lack of missing links.
Dr Colin Patterson, the then Palaeontologists to the British Natural History Museum when asked why he did not include any illustrations of transitional fossils, said ‘he did not know of any’. here
Stephen J Gould the Palaeontology professor of Harvard University confessed ‘there is not one fossil that a water tight case could be made for being a true transitional fossil.’ He also declared that the ‘extreme rarity’ of interim fossils remains a trade secret of paleontologists here.
Stating categorically there are missing links is not science.
Human Missing links: (A tangled web used to deceive)
Rupe and Sandford’s book ‘Contested Bones’ here page 264 paragraph 2, states:
Unfortunately when human bones are found too early in the fossil record then such bones are either reclassified (ie Mary Leakey’s Homo bones and footprints) re-
When I read this quote my overriding emotion is anger, the age of misinformation, disinformation and withholding of information is upon us. But it aint science that’s for sure.
The ascent of man, I commend the designers of such pictures as (#11) above, which any advertiser would be proud to have produced as a brand and logo. Its success has been unparalleled in science. The only trouble is, it is not science and such a smooth transition with multiple changes in the same direction just does not exist. The hominins record is a tangled tree with dead ends all over the place and nothing like this or similar images is true.
Evolutionists should distance themselves from that logo unless of course they want to be party to a deception.
In my opinion, Rupe and Sandford’s explanation of 5 different lines (see main essay on this site) is supported more by the data, why not check for transitional hominins/hominids fossils yourself, without them Evolution fails? Get Googling.(It should be noted that Sandford and Rupe although creationists may not agree with some of the views on this web site)
Kat Kerr does not endorse this web site. You can hear for yourself her revelations on Kat Kerr’s own web sites:
Contact: & Feedback
Copyright © SynergyWorking
All rights reserved
Author: Alan Parsonage
Allowed with credit for non profit and teaching. .Appropriate attribution must be given.
Content may not be altered. NB Kat Kerr and other authors must be asked for permission for their own revelation and quotes.
Please note although I have made every effort to be as accurate as possible there may be differences between Kat Kerr’s revelations and my interpretation of them and I advise that you check them out directly.
All Bible quotes and links are from the superb resource Blue Letter Bible here
By providing links to other sites, WordlsApartBiblically does not guarantee, approve, or endorse the information or products available on these sites.
Gap Theory Reveals #2