For Darwinists - "Today I Saw An Airplane: A Bedtime Story For Evolutionists"


#1

People all over the world are waking up to the completely unscientific fairy tale that is passed off as Darwinism.

There is a new YouTube clip and a feature film that is headed for theaters that we ALL should see about this subject.

Today I Saw An Airplane: A Bedtime Story For Evolutionists

youtube.com/watch?v=tXLH6DcCJpg

Expelled the Movie:

expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

It is time for all of us to do our own thinking and to realize what a fraud we have had forced upon us.

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

-Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Three points which destroy the theory of evolution:

  1. If evolution was true, we should have millions of transitional fossils.

But the reality is this:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?”

-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.

Now the evolutionists on this forum and in the classroom will trot the same handful of incredibly weak, incredibly laughable examples of “transitional forms” that have been debunked and discredited time after time (for example Archaeopteryx), but the reality is that if evolution was true then there would be millions upon millions of clear transitional fossils.

But there is a problem.

They are not there.

They simply do not exist.

  1. If evolution was true, then we should see an “evolutionary tree” in the fossil record, with complex life developing very slowly from earlier less complex forms. Instead, we see the sudden, instant appearance of complex life (evolutionists refer to this as the Cambrian explosion).

The truth is that complex life first appeared on the earth in a very sudden, explosive manner.

There is no denying it.

There is no getting around it.

  1. Also, evolutionists are at a complete loss in how to explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal.

As one expert explains:

“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

The evolutionists cannot show us a single example of functional new information being added to any creature.

Christians this is a great question to ask evolutionists:

Do you have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself?

It is time for all of us to grow up and think for ourselves.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)


#2

Could you provide a source please.

Also do you have any more recent quotes from leading scientists attacking evolution?

As for the rest of it that Catholic Church’s position is this:

MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION
**Pope John Paul II

**In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

Source
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

peace,


#3

If Darwinism is the wrong answer, what is the right answer?

Me, I have no strong attachment either way, although I do have a strong attachment to the notion that we are able, through our God-given intellect, derive true facts and understanding about the nature of God’s creation.


#4

Yawn. Yet another zealot that doesn’t appear to know the first thing about science trying to speak authoritatively about science. Wake me when this gets to 100 posts.

Peace

Tim


#5

Welcome to CARM MandM.

Creationists have been predicting the end of Darwinism for a long time. So far all such prophecies have failed, there is a long list of the failed prophecies at The Imminent Demise of Evolution.

It is time for all of us to do our own thinking and to realize what a fraud we have had forced upon us.

Unfortunately it is you who have been defrauded by the creationist sites you are getting your information from. If I wanted to learn about Catholicism then I would not go to Jak Chick for my information - if I did I would expect to be lied to. If you get your information about evolution from young earth creationist sites then it is likely that you will be lied to. For correct information on evolution go to Understanding Evolution.

  1. If evolution was true, we should have millions of transitional fossils.

It is. We do. If you want transitionals then I can list a few of them. Start with Wikipedia: List of transitional fossils. Follow that with just a part of the Talk Origins list: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 2A. Come back when you need more.

But there is a problem.

They are not there.

They simply do not exist.

You have the problem. Your creationist sources lied to you. They are there and they do exist.

  1. If evolution was true, then we should see an “evolutionary tree” in the fossil record, with complex life developing very slowly from earlier less complex forms. Instead, we see the sudden, instant appearance of complex life (evolutionists refer to this as the Cambrian explosion).

You are being lied to again. Here is a list of when different phyla appeared in order, oldest at the bottom and youngest at the top:



Period              # animal phyla    # plant phyla  total phyla
======              ==============    =============  ===========
Recent               12                 1             13
Oligocene             1                 1              2
Eocene                1                 1              2
Jurassic              1                 0              1
Triassic              0                 3              3
Carboniferous         3                 2              5
Devonian              1                 3              4
Silurian              0                 1              1
Ordovician            1                 0              1
Cambrian              9                 0              9
Vendian               4                 0              4

From Glenn Morton: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm


The figure for “Recent” is misleading as these are phyla with no fossil record at all so we cannot know when they first originated. They are mostly small squishy marine invertebrates that do not fossilise well.

The Cambrian is certainly important but it is not the only point of origin. It was not instant as there are some phyla present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian. Even within the Cambrian the “Explosion” took about ten to fifteen million years. We also see a tree that generally gets more complex with time. There were no fish in the Cambrian. There were no insects in the Cambrian, there were no land plants in the Cambrian. Life in the Cambrian was a lot simpler than the life we see now.

The truth is that complex life first appeared on the earth in a very sudden, explosive manner.

The truth is that your creationist sources are lying to you. Do not trust them.

The evolutionists cannot show us a single example of functional new information being added to any creature.

You are being lied to again. How about a mutation that helps prevent heart attacks due to the fat-rich western diet? Would that be beneficial do you think? We have such a mutation: Apolipoprotein A-I Milano mutation.

It is time for all of us to grow up and think for ourselves.

Please do, and don’t just copy your thoughts from lying creationist websites.

My apologies for criticising your creationist sources so hard, but what you are reading there is not science but propaganda. Answers in Genesis is perfectly open about ignoring any evidence that contradicts its literal interpreattion of Genesis. The AiG Statement of Faith says:D6 No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Source: answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
They deliberately ignore any inconvenient evidence that contradicts their already decided position. That is not science but head-in-the-sand dogma. If you want to argue about science then you will need to look at scientific sources, not biased sources that deliberately ignore part of the evidence.

Creationism lost the scientific battle to evolution between 1859 and 1900. Science has moved on while creationism is still trying to refight old battles.

rossum


#6

What most people have a problem with is not the idea that life may have developed by divergence, but the doctrine pushed by Darwinist fanatics that this process is totally RANDOM.

It is the RANDOM part of the evolutionary theory that denies God and divine creation. And it is the RANDOM element that is the weak spot of the theory. The idea that say Darwins finches evolved by random genetic mutations, to make all these species perfect for theirenvironment in the space of a few thousand years since their isolation, is ludicrous.

And the bile and insults thrown by random evolutionists at anyone daring to criticize their pet theory in any way, shows their true defensiveness about it.


#7

Science does not exist. It is only a collection of observations and interpretations made by men.

Currently, the propaganda investment to make others believe it is clearly evident here and on forums all over the internet. Why is this happening? A country to be run by atheists and scientists is being attempted, but the same problem the Communists had in the 1920s is the problem today: how to wipe out religious and superstitious beliefs from among the masses?

That is the reason for all of this “debate.”

God bless,
Ed


#8

What is Darwinism?

Now that we got that cleared up, here is a new book for MandM:

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero (Columbia Univ Press, 2007), geologist/paleontologist for Occidental College

Your two quotes from Patterson and Bounoure are classic creationist mis-citations, or out of context quotations. I can also play that game, although I’m not playing games since I’ve looked up these quotations in context myself:

From Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous geneticist and an Orthodox Christian:

“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” American Biology Teacher, March 1973)

Steve Project signed by over 800 (so far) Ph.D. scientists only with names of Steve (or variation):

“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to ‘intelligent design,’ to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.” (Project Steve, the NCSE response to creationist pseudo-“lists”)

International Theological Commission headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (2004):

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From statement “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God”, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, published July 2004)

<< Three points which destroy the theory of evolution >>

Shirley you can’t be serious. You’ll also want to read Cardinal Schonborn’s book: Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith, based on his 2005-2006 Vienna Catechetical Lectures.

Evidence for Evolution (summary of Theobald and TalkOrigins, from 2002)
more Evidence for Evolution (my response to Catholic creationism)

I might update these when I get my copy of Prothero’s latest book (2007 above).

Phil P


#9

By saying “fanatics” you are appealing to emotions rather than to facts. Evolution is not a “totally RANDOM” process. Mutations are not uncaused but have many different causes - chemicals, radiation, transcription errors and others. The effects of the mutations are random, not their causes. Also random mutations are only half of the story. Natural selection is far from being a random process. Your model of evolution is incomplete if you think that it is “totally” random. It is not because natural selection is not a random process.

It is the RANDOM part of the evolutionary theory that denies God and divine creation. And it is the RANDOM element that is the weak spot of the theory. The idea that say Darwins finches evolved by random genetic mutations, to make all these species perfect for theirenvironment in the space of a few thousand years since their isolation, is ludicrous.

You seem to be forgetting the effects of natural selection. Any species has variations within its members (the random variations). Those variations are selected by natural selection. Natural selection is not random, and by failing to recognise its presence you are in danger of setting up a straw man. Random mutation and natural selection can indeed make different species of finches.

Also bear in mind that what is random as far as science is concerned may not be random as far as theology is concerned. If God made a cosmic ray particle zig rather than zag then science would be unable to detect it. Cosmic rays are just one source of mutations.

rossum


#10

New York does not exist, it is only a collection of buildings made be man. edwest2 does not exist, he is only a collection of cells made by a man and a woman. Merely because something is made by man, that does not mean that it does not exist. If you are standing in the middle of the road and there is a car (made by man) coming towards you then you would be best advised to act as if that car existed and get out of its way. Your argument fails.

Currently, the propaganda investment to make others believe it is clearly evident here and on forums all over the internet. Why is this happening? A country to be run by atheists and scientists is being attempted, but the same problem the Communists had in the 1920s is the problem today: how to wipe out religious and superstitious beliefs from among the masses?

That is the first time I have seen George W Bush described as an atheist and a scientist. As to me, I am many gods further away from atheism than you are. I have no wish to “wipe out” religious beliefs, I just do not want someone else’s religious beliefs pushed into the science classroom where they do not belong. Why should your religious beliefs get a place in the science classroom while mine do not? Would you like science teachers in Catholic schools to be required to teach Buddhist ideas? No, I didn’t think that you would.

That is the reason for all of this “debate.”

No, it is because creationists want to force their pseudoscience into science classrooms. Stop trying to refight the battles that creationism lost in the 19th century. Creationism lost then and it will keep on losing, because in science it is the data that is decisive, and the data is against creationism.

rossum


#11

Wrong.

We do.

You misunderstand the use of “sudden” and “instant”.
The correct phrase is “a geological instant”, and it can be very misleading.
A “geological instant” can cover hundreds of thousands of years.

Wrong.

Source: The book in my signature below. READ IT! :slight_smile:


#12

As an engineer and a scientist I find this topic interesting.

First- cute video. I can attest that there is more randomness in the design of aircraft than you may feel comfortable with.

Second: There are two types of evolution micro and macro. I don’t think there is much controversy in the realization that species can have traits that make them more or less survivable. We see that in dogs. Howwver even though we have forced evolution into dogs by breeding, they are all still dogs all capable of procreating with each other. This leads to the concept of Macro evolution where there is a change in the species. The scientific evidence on this is much thinner. Looking at fossil records won’t prove a dinosaur gave birth to a new dinosaur that had a separate DNA structure. And then gave birth to a second so that the two random mutant new species just happen to be compatible with each other. Such an event would be a mirracle. Hence Inteligent Design.


#13

Can you name one person here who is trying force anything into science classrooms? Are you contacting any of the Teachers’ Unions to warn them of the threat they face? Why do you post here? What does it get you?

Peace,
Ed


#14

It could well be a fact that they are fanatics.


#15

It’s true that there is a lot of atheistic-Darwinist propaganda being spread for that reason. While the Catholics who passionately defend Darwinism are not overtly atheist, from what I’ve seen on this forum, most of them dissent against the Magisterium of the Church on doctrinal matters, so they share an antipathy against Catholic teaching.

Some want to place religion as subserviant to science. This would mean that science would tell religion what it is allowed to believe or do.

That’s precisely the Communist idea.


#16

I agree reggie. Some who support Science want it to become the new dictatorship, but, since science is a human enterprise, I can assure you that the best interests of the people will not be the goal. Science can be manipulated enough to make people believe all sorts of nonsense.

All that’s going on here is a power play. Abandon the Church, go for that “rational” science. But you and I know that the Church and only the Church, can combine all forms of reason to come up with the whole truth, not just a piece here or there. Science is not sufficient alone.

God bless,
Ed


#17

I think the view is that speciation occurs through seperation of a group of individuals from the rest of the species so that it mates only with those in the group. After tens or hundreds of thousands of years the individuals of the two groups have developed so much along seperate lines that they no longer can mate and reproduce with eachother due to barriers.


#18

The video was great until the end, where they started alluding to the whole “faith alone” nonsense.


#19

[quote=rossum]There were no fish in the Cambrian.
[/quote]

You’ll really have to get up to date rossum.

:wink:

See DODO DO

WITNESS #3
A LITTLE FISH
CHALLENGES A GIANT OF SCIENCE
The Boston Globe, May 30, 2000, Tuesday, Pg. E1 A LITTLE FISH CHALLENGES A GIANT OF SCIENCE By Fred Heeren, GLOBE CORRESPONDENT

CHENGJIANG, China The fish-like creature was hardly more than an inch long, but its discovery in the rocks of southern China was a big deal. The 530millionyearold fossil, dubbed Haikouella, had the barest beginning of a spinal cord, making it the oldest animal ever found whose body shape resembled modern vertebrates.

In the Nature article announcing his latest findings, JunYuan Chen and his colleagues reported dryly that the ancient fish “will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.” But the new fossils have become nothing less than a challenge to the theory of evolution in the hands of Chen, a professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology. Chen argued that the emergence of such a sophisticated creature at so early a date shows that modern life forms burst on the scene suddenly, rather than through any gradual process.

According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can’t account for the speed, the breadth, and onetime nature of “the Cambrian explosion,” a geologic moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record.

Rather than Charles Darwin’s familiar notion of survival of the fittest, Chen said he believes scientists should focus on the possibility that a unique harmony between forms of life allowed complex organisms to emerge. If all we have to depend upon is chance and competition, the conventional forces of evolution, Chen said, "then complex, highly evolved life, such as the human, has no reason to appear."
omniology.com/A-LittleFish.html


#20

I am aware of Haikouella, it is one of a number of early chordates. Fish are vertebrates, with backbones. Haikouella was not a vertebrate - it had no bones at all. Your own quote says “fish-like”, which is a good indication that it was not a fish. Also you would do well to go to the original source rather than read a summary by a journalist: An early Cambrian craniate-like chordate.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k222/dodo123_01/FISH.gif

Your image is misleading, this is what Haikouella looks like:

fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Chengjiang/Xidazoon-Haikouella/Haikouella-lanceolata-t.jpg

Click on the thumbnail for a larger image.

This is a good example of evolution. Contrary to what you would normally expect from a fish, Haikouella had no bones, no skull, no jaws. It did have a notochord. Later fish-like organisms added bones, skulls and jaws to evolve into fish. THere are no fish in the Cambrian, only precursors to fish - just as predicted by evolution. Every organism except the very first had to have a precursor.

rossum


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.