Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Podcast

2009-10-30T22:22:17Z

GeoffreyW: Created page with 'Podcasts are serialized audio programs produced by individuals, businesses, or governmental bodies for free distribution to individuals for use on MP3 players and computers. The ...'

Podcasts are serialized audio programs produced by individuals, businesses, or governmental bodies for free distribution to individuals for use on MP3 players and computers. The name is a portmanteau of the word's [[broadcast]] and iPod (the popular mp3 player developed by apple computers)

Talk:Paul Zachary Meyers

2009-10-30T22:16:48Z

GeoffreyW: Profanity in the link

== Profanity in the link ==

I don't know what to do, the reference URL contains profanity, and I can not remove it. I covered it up with a series of asterisks but I'm not sure if that is good enough. --[[User:GeoffreyW|GeoffreyW]] 18:16, 30 October 2009 (EDT)

Harvard Law School

2009-10-30T22:07:54Z

GeoffreyW: HLS educated a president once

The '''Harvard Law School''' is located in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts|Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]] just north of [[Harvard Square]] and across the street from the [[Agassiz Museum]]. Harvard Law School has graduated many important people such as the 19th president [[Rutherford B. Hayes]].

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Education]]

Paul Zachary Meyers

2009-10-30T22:02:20Z

GeoffreyW: Undo revision 715458 by EvanW (Talk) It is a fact, exposed by the Catholic League

PZ Meyers is an outspoken [[Atheist]] [[blog|blogger]] and professor of evolutionary development at University of Minisota Morris.

PZ Meyers is possibly most famous for his escalation of the Webster Cook [[Eucharist]] controversy in July of 2008. Webster Cook, a student senator at the University of Central Florida stole a consecrated Eucharist host from a Roman Catholic mass service and received several complaints and some legal action as a result of his actions. In response to this PZ Meyers put up a post on his blog ''Pharyngula'' requesting that his readers obtain and send to him some consecrated Eucharist hosts so that he could "[treat them] with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web."<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php It's a ********* cracker]</ref> These actions drew a great deal of hostility from the Catholic League who correctly identified his behavior as more an expression of anti-Catholic bigotry than a campaign for freedom of speech.<ref>http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html</ref>

{{reflist}}

Paul Zachary Meyers

2009-10-30T21:53:15Z

GeoffreyW: An article on atheist blogger PZ Meyers

PZ Meyers is an outspoken [[Atheist]] [[blog|blogger]] and professor of evolutionary development at University of Minisota Morris.

PZ Meyers is possibly most famous for his escalation of the Webster Cook [[Eucharist]] controversy in July of 2008. Webster Cook, a student senator at the University of Central Florida stole a consecrated Eucharist host from a catholic mass service and received several complaints and some legal action as a result of his actions. In response to this PZ Meyers put up a post on his blog Pharyngula requesting that his readers obtain and send to him some consecrated Eucharist hosts so that he could "[treat them] with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web."<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php It's a ********* cracker]</ref> These actions drew a great deal of hostility from the Catholic League who correctly identified his behavior as more an expression of anti-catholic biggotry than a campaign for freedom of speech.<ref>http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html</ref>

Ray Comfort

2009-10-30T21:41:40Z

GeoffreyW: Improved slightly, needs more work though

'''Ray Comfort''' (born December 5, 1949) is a leading [[Christian]] apologist. He has written large numbers of books on [[evolution]] and [[theology]], including ''Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups'', and ''How to Know God Exists: Scientific Proof of God''. His popular book, ''You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think'' knocked [[Richard Dawkins|Richard Dawkins']] book ''The God Delusion'' off the number 1 spot in the atheism category at Amazon.com<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89453</ref>. He has also written a forward to [[Darwin|Darwin's]] ''On the origin of species'' <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-Anniversary-Charles-Darwin/dp/0882709194/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256938714&sr=8-2</ref>. Atheists have shown their deceit by writing negative reviews of his books, even though most of them have never read them.{{fact}}

==Banana Incident==
In his ground breaking work on witnessing, the way of the master, Ray Comfort once reasonably used a [[banana]] and coke can analogy to provide evidence of a Creator. Atheists [[liberal deceit|deceitfully]] edited the video to make it appear that Ray believed that the banana was proof of the existence of God. <ref>http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com Ray Comfort's Blog</ref> Since then, Ray Comfort's popularity has skyrocketed.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Comfort, Ray}}
[[category:Authors]]
[[category:Christian Apologists]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-10-30T21:34:36Z

GeoffreyW: Ray Comfort explained that lack of horse fossils is reflected in the scientific litterature

A scientific or logical theory cannot permit any counterexamples. In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' things in terms of a purely mechanistic view.

The following are counterexamples to the theory of evolution. If just one of these counterexamples is correct, then the theory of evolution fails.

* evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation
* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor
* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, foreward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species</ref>
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
* the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.
* the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
* Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employs a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
* No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
* The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
* Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref>
* Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
* No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
* Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
* Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
* Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
* Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
* While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one.
* Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
* The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
* Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
* We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
* For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
* In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.
* Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
* The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.
* Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
* Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become unviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
* Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:Evolution]]

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]