Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[Undeceived]

---

Did you know that C-14 dating organisms in the oldest stratum makes the world out to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

Real scientists know that C-14 is useful only to about 50,000 years ago.

That is a non factor and red herring. If the earth happens to be young, obviously C-14 is okay. You're already assuming the earth is old before we've even done any testing. Suppose the world is young. C-14 would work. And K-Ar would be inaccurate in the exact same way that it is. The problem is, you don't know if the earth is old or young to begin with. You must know whether it is old or young before you date. If the earth is 6,000 years old, you get the dates we get with both C-14 (6k-10k) and K-Ar (4-5B) K-Ar is thrown off because it is not supposed to be used on younger ages, by the very same logic as your above statement. Dating therefore supports creationism, period. Next thought. If the earth is billions of years old, you get the same K-Ar you get if the earth is 6,000 years (4-5Billion) and you shouldn't get a C-14 at all, yet you do. All traces of C-14 should be gone. Yet not only is there enough C-14 to date, but it happens to come out to the near exact age the Bible implies the earth is. Do you think that's mere coincidence?

---

The evidence for evolution can be made from four main sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species

There is no 'change' recorded in the fossil record. No before and after or evidence of cause and effect. All we have are fossils of separate species that scientists piece together according to similarities. We should have transitional fossils, since theoretically gradual evolution requires hundreds of forms between most of our known species. Why is it we have 20+ fossils of many extinct organisms but not a single one of the necessary hundred between them?

2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

These are the similarities behind the fossil record. But similarities don't mean one came from another, it just means they're similar. If God wanted to make 10 types of cats, they would all be similar or they wouldn't be cats. Scientists have a difficult time arranging the fossil tree using this method because there are organisms on opposite sides that are oftentimes more similar than ones close by. They call this 'convergent evolution' which is basically the assumption that two separate trees of species will be so lucky as to evolve the same traits, as if they weren't lucky enough to gain them in the first place. The chances of the eye forming is something like 10^20 and scientists want us to believe it could have happened multiple times in different places? That's real faith.

3. the geographic distribution of related species

There are birds, flies, primates, felines, ect. all over the world. Species are too well distributed to have evolved and found their places before Pangea supposedly split. Specific species are in specific habitats because they are suited for that habitat. They could have evolved to fit that habitat or God could have put them in that habitat to begin with. As climates change, they migrate. I'm using the dichotomy of the God of the Bible versus evolution here. Evolution fits, but so does God. We haven't moved anywhere. Evolution, you will find, always fits given enough time because it is a 'response theory,' meaning scientists see what they need and conform evolution to it. Anytime something contradicts evolution, they alter their theory. So don't accuse creationists of doing that, because it's mutual.

4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

Provide a link to these recorded changes, please. My bet is you mean microevolution, or variance, which is not true evolution in terms of increasing complexity. In microevolution, non-useful genes die out over time and the stronger ones take precedence. Maybe, if you're lucky, you'll have a mutation in there. Creationists wholeheartedly agree that microevolution occurs. If it didn't, we couldn't breed special cows that provided more milk or engineer disease-resistant tomato plants. It's macroevolution, or long-term speciation, that we are still looking for. One species must become another, and new information (like new tissues) must be added to the genetic code. The organism must gain complexity, and we have never observed an organism gaining complexity except in 1-1000 odds in which the majority of the test subjects died. There should be a tendency to increase complexity, and so far scientists have not been able to demonstrate that. If they can't show it in a lab, what makes you think it will happen in real, uncontrolled environments?

Natural selection itself is sufficient evidence to explain the functionality and complexity of the biological world.

Natural selection by definition reduces complexity. The organism with the suitable gene lives and the organism with the less-suitable gene dies. The less-suitable gene is lost and the gene pool shrinks. Ex: We had black and white rabbits before. We only have white ones now because we're in the arctic. No new tissues have been gained in the process, and species go extinct rather than break into separate species. Genes need to come from somewhere before natural selection takes place.

Hi, I'm RaphielDrake. Pleased to meet you.

Bacteria can be used to demonstrate evolutions workings easily,
bacteria leads short lives and so reproduce, live, die and evolve at an accelerated rate. When bacteria adapts to be immune to an anti-biotic thats micro-evolution. Bacteria that does not adapt to a mass vaccination would quickly die out as proven by the near eradication of small-pox. They will also develop different adaptations to cope with the immune system yielding many different types of bacteria. Some will survive, some will not. No species of bacteria as a whole becomes an entirely different one. Most of the older generation would simply die out because they didn't adapt.

Or if you want a larger diagram of natural diversity and natural selection then look no further than the dinosaurs. All of them reptilian creatures but look how many forms they took. Masters of the sea, land and air. Most of which died out thanks to a massive calamity yet we are left with their reptilian descendants that thrive today. Note how all of these descendants are either water-fairing or small.
If you want a more modern diagram of diversity look at the 30000 different *known* species of spider.

Now we've established natural diversity is a fact as is natural selection we must look at the theory of spontaneous genetic mutation, also known as evolution. We all have different genetic code, within that genetic code are various mutations that have been passed down from generation to generation. This is, to a very slight extent, evolution.The mutations passed down from many parents over the course of 10000 years would undoubtedly produce a noticeably different human-being than seen today. What mutations are passed down are dependent on who survives to pass down their mutations, this is dependent on circumstance and the suitability of the individuals genes to cope with it. i.e. A human born with extremely poor swimming skills and a tendency toward low technical aptitude who hadn't yet mated would find it very difficult to pass down his genes in the event that the worlds surface became almost completely engulfed by the sea. Of course factors like him being born on an island with a ship or others who were capable of swimming or building sea-craft would improve these odds.

To answer some of your other queries:
This process is constant so *every* form is a transitional form, also I suggest you look up homo habilis. Ignoring the fact that fossils are very rare occurances and we're lucky to get the ones we do, there are many examples of transitional forms. To clarify an example of a transitional form is *not* one creature merged with another. It is an example of a creature who has developed an adaptation.

Many different species evolving in similar conditions would yield multiple species with similar traits, this isn't to say they are the same species or even of the same tree. This is to say they share characteristics thanks to their environment.

Genetic code changes to varying conditions over the course of a very long period of time, while we do lose some through natural selection we also gain some through adaptation over a long period of time.
Remember, the numbers of a species aren't made up in thousands or even tens of thousands. We're talking hundreds of thousands and more. Yes, many die in a species and sometimes all of a species die out but sometimes just enough make it through to continue its survival. Considering how many species have lived on this planet it is no surprise that some made it despite the odds.

Science is not dogmatic, it alters its theory based on evidence, Creationism alters its belief *because* of evidence. The difference being that one pursues truth through evidence and the other insists it knows the truth in-spite of evidence and occasionally being forced to give ground begrudgingly. Rest assured, if scientists one day examine DNA through a microscope and it shifts to form a picture of Jesus then they'll closely research that and alter their perception.

All of this combined outlines a very good case for evolution. If I were in your position I would probably fall back to a position of "God created the process of evolution and thus sparked all of this off", no-one would be able to come up with proof that wasn't the case. Evolution has been proven by looking at what came before and what we see now and although open to debunking you're not doing your faith any favors by trying to undermine it with nothing but circular reasoning and easily countered points.

Hope this has helped clear things up.

---

Hi RaphielDrake, thanks for your response.
Apart from viruses (small-pox), you gave no examples of long-term adaptation. Creationists agree that viruses mutate and change, but that's because they are entirely different from living organisms. They adapt as they leap from creature to creature. Simple organisms at evolution's beginning would not have had the luxury of reproducing using the host's machinery, nor do viruses explain anything in the fossil tree. Living organisms must self-reproduce, they require a single species into split into several, and they have to develop new structures and tissues--like lungs or ears. I'd like some sources for your 'adapted transitional forms.' What are some models? I appeal to the evidence we have currently, not what we hope to find. Currently, species are converging and becoming more like one another. We've had just under 1000 large-animal extinctions in the last 100 years, but how many new species? Only a handful, and those are only technically their own species because they won't readily breed with the supposed mother species. The fossil record shows which organisms die, not when they came about. If you appeal to our few number of fossils as the reason why we don't see any transitionals, how can you be so certain the first dead member in the fossil record betrays the time it became its own species? That, I believe, is interpreting the evidence in whatever way fits the theory. It's being selective, and science is not supposed to be selective.

I agree with your explanation of bacteria. Yet the fact remains, it's only microevolution. The vast majority of 'evolved' bacteria never actually received a mutation. A few members of the species already had the ability. For example, there is a 'new' strand of bacteria able to digest oil. Scientists found that all that happened was the hardiest bacteria survived and the weakest died. Eventually all we had were the ones able to digest the oil. These bacteria did not gain any new tissues, they were simply pushing boundaries of what had already been possible. The genes haven't changed and no new info has been added to the genetic code. For another analogy, you don't see many seven-foot people. If you didn't have TV you might think they didn't exist. But say there was some change in climate that allowed only the tallest to survive. Soon everyone would be over 6 feet, and then 6.5 and upwards. Did we always have this gene for tallness? Yes, it just wasn't evident. The same goes for bacteria. We're looking for qualitative adaptations, not quantitative. Everything to do with resistance or better ability to do something already possible (like eat and grow) is quantitative. If the bacteria started jumping for its food, that would be qualitative. Qualitative adaptations require mutations. If you have evidence of a mutation leading to a qualitative change like a new tissue I'd love to see it, because I haven't found any yet.

"This is to say they share characteristics thanks to their environment."
Exactly my point. But your claiming this while maintaining that similarities imply relationship is, once again, being a selective scientist. You're selective with dating fossils by the organisms death and you're selective with similarities. Those, RaphielDrake, are the only two basis for the fossil record. And you've destroyed the scientific honesty of both.

I'll reiterate: macroevolution is not microevolution in the long run. The new species must cease being able to breed with the source species. It must receive random mutations. And there must be a tendency to survive based on these mutations. But if you examined the evidence, you’d find that the majority of mutated organisms die. Scientists test with mice, and most mutations are neutral, but of the remainder the odds are 100 to 1 that the mouse will live with a mutation. A mutation, by tested science, is more likely to kill an organism than help it survive. So the inner-generational tendency is to die, not live. Scientists make a leap of faith here when they assume (and hope like crazy) that the badly-mutated organisms will not pass their genes on while the beneficially-mutated organisms will. Let’s suppose there are 1000 neutral and 100 harmful mutations per every 1 beneficial mutation. Ten of the harmfully-mutated organisms die immediately. The other ninety have disease-carrying mutations or cataracts or cholesterol problems that don't have immediate effects or impact the organism's ability to find a mate. Those ninety pass their traits and their offspring die out within a couple generations. 90-1 odds that species is going extinct faster than it can form. Look at mice experiments. More than any other mutation, they receive a weakness to cancer. But the cancer susceptibility does not kill them immediately. It passes on. If scientists cannot create a positive mutation tendency in a lab, what makes you think organisms will have it in real environments?

If a mutation doesn’t make a species implode, it struggles when introduced to ‘irreducible complexity.’ The human eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ. Take away one of the 20+ pieces of the eye and it either is severely handicapped or blind altogether. How did evolution achieve this incredible organ? Either there are thousands of organisms in the fossil record, each with a slightly less-developed eye that somehow employs the parts in useful ways, or organisms collect ‘dormant mutations’ until all the pieces have arrived. One could come slightly earlier, but why would natural selection keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? So scientists like Richard Dawkins lauded the dormant mutation theory. This theory, however, has since been debunked because we see no dormant mutations in any current genetic code. Instead, there are only a couple genes scientists consider to be defunct. One would think, given our current evidence, that evolution stopped when humans arrived. How convenient would that be for someone wanting to fabricate a theory about it.