Jim_Smith
New
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...UK-public-schools/5631403128922/?spt=mps&or=2
It is a fact that scientists cannot explain the origin of life or the Cambrian explosion. It seems like they want to outlaw the truth.
There are many, many problems with evolutionary theory. So facing the failure of naturalism, naturalists have had to resort to enforcing it through legislation.
If anyone doubts my claim that naturalism is a failure, I offer the following as supporting references.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_id
It would take more than 100 million years for a small change involving two mutations to occur naturally in humans. The entire primate line has existed for less than that length of time and there are many more mutations that separate humans from apes.
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19308937461/bold-biology-for-2009
United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationism as scientifically valid in all schools receiving public funding.
The funding agreement defines creationism as "any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution,"
It is a fact that scientists cannot explain the origin of life or the Cambrian explosion. It seems like they want to outlaw the truth.
There are many, many problems with evolutionary theory. So facing the failure of naturalism, naturalists have had to resort to enforcing it through legislation.
If anyone doubts my claim that naturalism is a failure, I offer the following as supporting references.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_id
- Problems with the Natural Chemical "Origin of Life" (updated). There is no location where life could plausibly have originated naturally, not in deep sea thermal vents, tide pools, the ocean, volcanic ridges, clay surfaces or extraterrestrial locations. There is no good candidate for the first self-replicating molecule, not RNA, DNA, or protein.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838
Primer: Summary of Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution There is no good explanation for the origin of complex biochemical features. Molecular and anatomical homology fail to provide evidence for common descent. The fossil record does not show transition from one species to another. Developmental biology fails to support common descent. Genetics and chemistry cannot explain the origin of the genetic code. Neo-Darwinism does not explain the geographical distribution of species.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1510
Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, By: Stephen C. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, August 4, 2004. The Cambrian explosion, where many new animal types appeared suddenly 530 million years ago cannot be explained by natural causes. It is best explained by intelligent design, since intelligence is the only known cause that can create information and complex systems.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177
The Politics of Suppression of Intelligent Design.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/helping_an_inte085171.html
Survival of the fakest. Many of the examples claimed to prove Darwinism (the Miller-Urey primordial soup experiment, the similarity of early embryos in different species, the evolutionary tree, homology in vertebrate limbs, peppered moths evolving a darker color as air pollution darkened tree trunks, Darwin's finches, evolution from apes to humans) are false or misleading.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
Atheists: "Science shows there is no good reason to believe in God". Nobel Prize Winning Scientists: "The scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of God".
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/atheists-science-shows-there-is-no-good.html
The Cosmological Argument for a Transcendent Designer of the Universe. The discovery that the universe is expanding, the discovery that the universe came from nothing, and the discovery that natural laws are finely tuned to make life possible, all demonstrate that the universe was created and designed by an intelligence outside the universe. The evidence for intelligent design in the origin and evolution of life shows that the designer continued to play a role in the universe long after its creation.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cosmological-argument-for.html
Materialism Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/materialism-cannot-explain-origin-of.html
Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories by Casey Luskin: 1) No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup. 2) Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis. Dehydration synthesis does not occur spontaneously in water. 3) RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence. 4) Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code. 5) No Workable Model for the Origin of Life
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/03/top-five-problems-with-current-origin.html
Life did not Arise Through the Unguided Action of Natural Laws. The genetic code is finely tuned for efficiency (it is not random) and it is unlikely this efficiency could have arisen through evolution because any change in the code would affect every protein in the cell which would be catistrophically fatal.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/03/life-did-not-arise-through-unguided.html
The Flawed Evidence for Evolution. DNA analysis fails to confirm the evolutionary tree.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-flawed-evidence-for-evolution.html
Why Darwinism is False. The fossil record lacks examples of intermediate species; "early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; ... non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; ... natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection—which is to say, minor changes within existing species."
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-darwinism-is-false.html
The evidence usually said to demonstrate that humans evolved from apes, does not demonstrate any such thing:
Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/following_the_evidence_where_i047161.html
Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/does_genome_evi083181.html
It would take more than 100 million years for a small change involving two mutations to occur naturally in humans. The entire primate line has existed for less than that length of time and there are many more mutations that separate humans from apes.
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19308937461/bold-biology-for-2009
Last edited: