Regarding Evolution

[Grudunza]

For one thing, evolution makes no claim at all for going from lifeless to life. It is not a mechanism for creating life initially (e.g., abiogenesis), but for the propagation and diversity of life. Everything that you've described like the eye as being evidence of intelligent design has been proven as being perfectly viable by evolution, and conversely, all of the Behe ID theories have been disproven. You're several years behind the science on most of the points.

As for the God as a watcher idea, I can appreciate your POV there. I think he was speculating on a lot of that, from a theoretical viewpoint to give a premise for the specific idea that humans wouldn't have been inevitable. But if God was directing the initial process at all, and perhaps influencing some things thereafter, then there's no need for that speculation, as humans could be inevitable.

More importantly, I accept the science, which is showing evolution to be the process that developed our world. As the guy in the podcast describes, the evidence is overwhelming at this point. We tend to trudge up the same old anti-evolutionary ideas... it's just a "theory," there are no transitional forms, etc. That's all baloney, really, and we can't keep holding on to old and bad ideas like that, just because they're comfortable. I was in the same ID boat a few years back, but it just doesn't hold up, and it increasingly becomes a matter of having to either fit square pegs in round holes, just to fit what we think our theology must claim, or to rethink the interpretations of our theology. The latter is much more fitting to our imperative to be willing to learn and grow and gain and apply further light and knowledge. Whatever is true, is true, comprising both science and theology. I'm seeing the true science as evolution, so our understanding of what the true theology is must adapt to that. Our particular theology is well-suited to that, and to me it opens some very interesting possibilities and ideas.

[Ezra]

coriolis effect disproves evolution at the rate which they say it had to happen. Along with the fact that the earths rotation is slowing down at a very calculable rate.

Rewind 250,000 years ago. We had a constant wind speed of 200mph with storm gusts up close to 1000 mph.

Or is that why dinosores where so big so they wouldn't get blown away????

[braingrunt]

If I could understand the path which would produce an eye, I'd be more likely to swallow it. I suppose I'd need someone to talk to in a very lively interactive way, to explain the transitions and why each one benefits. Of course we'd need to talk about more than just the eye. If they cant demonstrate a logical path then I'll just belive they are beleiving on faith, which is of course of no interest to me no matter how many smart people feel the same.

Ps, I think it's amusing when someone as supposedly smart as Stephen Hawking acts like he has an answer to the question "why is there something rather than nothing". His answers as a scientist must always have causes... any reasons he gives can always be wrapped in an infinite layer of why?s and what makes that so?s.

In other words if he can reason about the origin of stuff, then those reasons themselves are proof of a deeper reality which he relying on rather than actually explaining.

In short, to me even Stephen Hawking himself displays foolishness which makes me feel like my doubts are as good as anyones, and theres no reason for me to dispel them on authority alone; if on the other hand someone can say something which makes sense to me, I dont care if im talking to a dunce.

[Bill]

I have always believed that Liberals ascended from apes
Conservatives from Adam and Eve
And Moderates from crossbreeding of the above

[Grudunza]

See episode 2 of Cosmos for a great depiction of evolution accounting for eye complexity.

From talkorigins.org: "The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963)."

So a 22.7 hour day 370 million years ago (when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth) is not remotely a difference enough to cause winds prohibitive to life.

[Grudunza]

Here's a link to a YouTube video about eye evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Cosmos segment is more involved and better depicted. If you have Netflix, it's on there now in episode 2.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

In a Telestial sphere where entropy is the presiding rule of nature - things over time tend toward disorganization and corruption, it would seem reasonable to deduce that chaos cannot "evolve" into order. It is akin to the analogy (author unknown) who stated that the probability of "evolution" being the "cause" of increased organismic complexity as being like a disassembled clock with all its gears, face, spring, hands, etc. being thrown into a box and shaken continuously until it becomes "re-assembled" and operational. Considering just the complexity of the eyeball, it becomes apparent that it is far more complex and intricate than a clock. Too, consider the probability of parallel "evolution" occurring to produce a male and a female of a species capable of procreation. Order cannot proceed from chaos without the intervention of two things: 1.) energy and 2.) intelligence.

I encourage you to listen to the interview that I linked to, as it dispels most of these (and other above) notions, and also beautifully describes how evolution can indeed have caused the great complexity of our planet, and our eyeball, etc. I think we need to let go of these false notions about evolution (and about our theology being anti-evolution). We have much to gain in our theology moving forward with a correct understanding of science, and not continually stretching the truth in ways that are becoming increasingly ridiculous, as evolution becomes more and more apparent (it has been for quite some time, already) as the method by which life progressed and developed on this planet.

I read all your posts and listened to the podcast and none of it resonates with me. I personally found the whole thing disturbing and unsatisfying. But it sure did provoke a lot of thoughts so I hope no one minds this rant.

In all seriousness, you and Stephen Peck have it all wrong. What's really troubling is all these falsehoods, lies, doctrines, and tenants of the devil are being taught at BYU and are being pushed as real science and real theology. Just the fact that Darwin's evolution is being taught at BYU gives the theory credit and gives students reasons to inquire. What a complete waste of time and every BYU student who has bought into these false notions is now off the path that leads towards light and truth. This results in a belief system that is based on incorrect facts and incorrect truths which leads to a incorrect understanding... Zeal without knowledge is a dangerous thing.

BYU is a true blue Babylonian school with the deceptive banner of Zion. The divine science of theology (LOF) is non-existent at BYU and in the church today. Asking the question why this is so will keep any man up for nights. Stephen Peck draws all his so called truths from mainstream science literature which is not real science. Far from real science. Darwin was no scientist. Einstein surely was no scientist, rather he was a mathematician, just like Stephen Peck. And he hated experiments.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein

Crazy thing is Einstein is right in this case, no experiment has ever proven him right because it's literally impossible to prove and because he's wrong. Many experiments have also proven him wrong. (speed of light) But you wont find any of it in the science you subscribe to for good reason, which just so happens to be apart of the very science you are trying to persuade others to believe in here on the forum. Real Science does not begin with mathematics, but with direct observation, experiment, and special insights into cause-and-effect relationships. Science is the study of patterns in nature to uncover dependable relationships between causes and effects. As they are confirmed, these relationships lead to formulations of useful “laws” governing the natural world.

“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjectures.”~Hannes Alfvén, Nobel Laureate 1970 for his contribution to plasma physics

Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ~Nikola Tesla

Hannes Alfven and Nikola Tesla were real scientist. Look them up.

Big Bang, GR, bending time and space, evolution, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, expanding universe... it's all false, not true, no relation to reality. It's based on speculation of a few individuals who have no understanding of the character and attributes of God Almighty. On top of that all these speculations and notions goes against God's natural and absolute laws of the universe. All in direct conflict. So why do lds folks put so much faith and trust in modern science over the Holy word of God? "Oh ye of little faith."

"Among the popular errors of modern times, an opinion prevails that miracles are events which transpire contrary to the laws of nature, that they are effects without a cause. If such is the fact, then, there never has been a miracle, and there never will be one. The laws of nature are the laws of truth. Truth is unchangeable, and independent in its own sphere. A law of nature never has been broken. And it is an absolute impossibility that such law ever should be broken." [Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 1891, pg. 102]

Braingrunt is right about Hawkins. The big bang, law of gravity, and general relativity make it possible for the universe to be able to spontaneously creates itself out of nothing and this is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. And this is why Hawking's and others correctly conclude that God is not necessary because if it is correct, (BB,GR,LG, EV) God is literally not needed. If you want to find real substance, real light and truth it will be necessary to unlearn all these false notion and start searching anything and everything that is not from the mainstream science establishment. NONE of it can be trusted.

From Stephen Pecks Interview... (Podcast)

"If there is any truths at all available from science, evolution and the age of the earth are one of them." #-o

Both of these assertions are utterly false! Evolution doesn't give us any insights into our origins, intelligence, energy, or human consciousness to name a few. We learn nothing about the past or the future. Evolution CANNOT explain "the great complexity of our planet" like you claim. It denounces the real truth, it does not embrace truth. (God is not necessary) And anyone who mixes these godless teachings with the gospel is nothing more than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

--Stephen Peck goes on about evidence and the reliability of Carbon Dating...Utterly False. Nothing reliable at all about it all especially when one has a correct understanding of the electric nature of the Universe. Carbon dating is not reliable and cannot be trusted. Yet, evolutionist base many of there assumptions on Carbon dating.

--Peck goes on about Dinosaur fossils and the sequences ... He is 100% wrong again. Either you choose to ignore the evidence or you are not aware of the evidence that utterly refutes Peck sequence of dinosaurs. The evidence shatters evolution with one bolt of lightning. Literally.

--Peck gets all giddy about the "really strong evidence that the sun is made of hydrogen."... Really? This is 100% false. Peck and the so called science establishment haven't got the slightest clue about how the Sun handles and operates it's business. NONE! Everything we observe on the sun has not been expected nor predicted by the so called experts. Nor can they explain these anomalies. Is this real science? "A long history of unexpected discoveries is the hallmark of a failed hypothesis."

The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice. -Arthur Schopenhauer

Stephen Peck than turns the whole creation upside down on it's head while opening admitting, "I only have wild speculations on the creation." Yet he claims evolution is well documented and how it can explain the great complexity of our planet which it cant. Evolution denounce real history like Noah's flood. Evolution mocks God and mocks the testimonies of every ancient civilization since Adams glorious golden age. Peck and the two commentators even get a laugh in at the expense of the old testament. Joseph Smith was a catastrophist, he was a literalist. This is a fact.

"OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH"

If the truth be told there is little to no truth in that entire podcast. Evolution is an intrinsic aspect of movement. Darwin's "Origin of Species," Without that initial division of the original cell there would be no change - no change, no evolution... i-)

Before I continue let me just say, I do believe in a small form of evolution (if you want to call it that). It just doesn't require millions of years but rather in the blink, or twinkle of an eye by comparison. "Quickened" if you will. This follows along the lines of "Transmutation" at a DNA level via intense EM radiation. (alternative life forms through changing ES potential environment)

"Swiss journalist Luc Bürgin unveils the secret of a sensational biological discovery at the pharmaceutical giant Ciba (now Novartis), which unfortunately has been ignored by the experts up to the present day. In laboratory experiments the researchers there Dr. Guido Ebner and Heinz Schürch exposed cereal seeds and fish eggs to an "electrostatic field" - in other words, to a high voltage field, in which no current flows.

"Unexpectedly primeval organisms grew out of these seeds and eggs: a fern that no botanist was able to identify; primeval corn with up to twelve ears per stalk; wheat that was ready to be harvested in just four to six weeks. And giant trout, extinct in Europe for 130 years, with so-called salmon hooks. It was as if these organisms accessed their own genetic memories on command in the electric field, a phenomenon, which the English biochemist, Rupert Sheldrake, for instance believes is possible...

The Swiss pharmaceutical group patented the process – and then stopped the research in 1992. Why? Because "primeval cereals" generated by an electric field, in contrast to modern strains of seeds, require hardly any fertilisers or pesticides – i.e. crop protection agents, sold as priority products by Ciba at that time. The discovery was soon forgotten, without the global scientific community taking any notice"
http://www.urzeit-code.com/index.php?id=23" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spontaneous "evolution" via exposure to electrostatic field. (Adams glorious golden age??) Now I wonder why you'll never find this in any Evolutionary literature...

Along these lines ^^^ not too long ago I read an article in which frog eggs were zapped and salamanders hatched (or was it vice-versa?). The thing is, after something like three to five generations, the "zapped" critter's DNA reverted back to its "proper" blueprint. At the time, I thought, "Wow - fascinating! But what force caused it to eventually revert back?"

"The most astonishing experiment that was performed by Garjajev’s group is the reprogramming of the DNA codon sequences using modulated laser light. From their discovered grammatical syntax of the DNA language they were able to modulate coherent laser light and even radio waves and add semantics (meaning) to the carrier wave. In this way they were able to reprogram in vivo DNA in living organisms, by using the correct resonant frequencies of DNA. The most impressive discovery made so far is that spoken language can be modulated to the carrier wave with the same reprogramming effect. Now this is a baffling and stunning scientific discovery! Our own DNA can simply be reprogrammed by human speech, supposing that the words are modulated on the correct carrier frequencies!"
http://www.rexresearch.com/gajarev/gajarev.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having observed in his clinical practice that broken bones sometimes failed to grow together, he set out to study experimentally why, and if external physical conditions could improve the growth. He found that a DC current through the broken bone (about 1 nanoampere) would greatly improve the growth and fusion of the bones. During this work, Becker found it significant that lower animals had much better regeneration capabilities: Salamanders could regrow lost limbs, while frogs seemed to be a little too high on the evolutionary ladder to achieve this regeneration. He studied these animals for years in order to find out why evolution caused impaired regeneration capabilities, and whether electric fields or currents could stimulate regeneration. His experiments and theorizing could be regarded as a continuation of the similar work of Harold Saxton Burr. Becker thought, like Burr, that some sort of field encompassed the body, governing and stimulating regeneration. He found that an electrostatic field, positive away from the limb stump, could enable regeneration of a frog limb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O._Becker" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He suspected that electric fields played an important role for controlling the regeneration process, and therefore mapped the electric potentials at various body parts during the regeneration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Electric_(book" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Electroporation, or electropermeabilization, is a significant increase in the electrical conductivity and permeability of the cell plasma membrane caused by an externally applied electrical field. It is usually used in molecular biology as a way of introducing some substance into a cell, such as loading it with a molecular probe, a drug that can change the cell's function, or a piece of coding DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroporation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Experiments with electrostatic fields might illuminate biological diversity
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/ ... iology.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Quantavolution theory maintains that the world from its beginnings, including the world of life and humanity, has changed largely by quantum leaps, rather than by tiny increments over great stretches of time." -Alfred de Grazia-
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /intro.pdf

Laser and radio wave modulation also shows how information can be gained by DNA without resorting to genetic drift, random mutation or natural selection, or heaps of time.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

What most folks are unaware of is that the whole theory of evolution has been overwhelmingly refuted a number of times and via a number of totally unrelated arguments to such an extent that any normal science theory under the same circumstances would have been rejected and thrown out literally decades ago.

The first such disproof and the one which rightfully should have ended the debate involved fruit flies. Fruit flies breed new generations every other day so that running any sort of a decades-long experiment with fruit flies will involve more generations of them than there have ever been of anything even remotely resembling humans on our planet. Those flies were subjected to everything in the world known to cause mutations and the mutants were recombined every possible way; all they ever got were sterile freaks, and fruit flies. Several prominent scientists publicly denounced evolution at that point in time including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.

The failure was due to the fact that our entire living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in the picture was that for a fruit fly. When the DNA/RNA information scheme was discovered, even if the fruit fly thing had never happened, evolution should have been discarded on the spot. But GIVEN the fact of the fruit fly experiments, somebody HAD to have thought to himself...

"Hey, THAT'S THE REASON THE FRUIT FLY EXPERIMENTS FAILED!!!!!!"

The DNA/RNA system is an information code just like C#, Java, or C++. Information codes do not just sort of happen or appear amongst inanimate matter for no particular reason. In other words, there is no way in the world anybody should be believing in evolution 40 years after the discovery of DNA and, again, that's just one overwhelming disproof amongst a number of such. Again no legitimate science theory would ever survive such a history.

And then there is the Haldane dilemma, which amounts to an understanding of the time spans which would be needed to spread ANY genetic change through any group of creatures. A very simple version of the thing is all most intelligent people should need:

Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or "proto-humans" ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a "beneficial mutation". Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.

Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

"Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in "human evolution". The max number of such "beneficial mutations" which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Walter Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from Neanderthals."

That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.

People who have carried out the math for real-world rates of substitution come up with it taking quadrillions of years for our present living world to have evolved in any fashion even if that were possible, which it isn't.

So evolution needs quadrillions of years... how much time do they (evolutionites) actually have? A very big part of the answer has been coming in lately in the form of blood, blood vessels, and raw meat turning up in dinosaur remains:



How can soft tissue, including blood vessels of dinosaurs survive for millions of years?? It's impossible folks. This destroys the age of the dinosaurs in the evolution paradigm. In other words, Midrashic sources and Amerind oral traditions are basically correct in describing human interaction with dinosaurs just a few thousand years ago and the thing we've heard all our lives about dinosaurs dying out 65M years ago is a bunch of BS. But there is a science, real testable science that is providing answers to long unanswered questions. ELECTRIC FOZZILIZATION!

A theory which needs quadrillions of years and only has a few thousand is basically ridiculous; no reasonably or well educated person should ever buy into it.

Say hello to my little friends...

Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mummy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... 29053.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Dinosaur Mummies
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/ ... nosaur.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/ ... osaur2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/ ... osaur3.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mummified Dinosaurs Fossil Unearthed in Japan
http://www.thejapannews.net/index.php/sid/245121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mummified Dinosaur Discovered In Montana
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mummy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meet Leonardo, the Mummy Dinosaur
http://www.mrvideo.com/Dinosaur%20Programs.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.formontana.net/leonardo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.meta-religion.com/Zoology/Ex ... EnIxEnnZMs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Scanning Electron Microscope Study of Mummified Collagen Fibers in Fossil Tyrannosaurus Rex Bone
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... 2/Trex.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ssues.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

T. Rex Bone Tissue Reveals Creature's Gender
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technolog ... isgirl.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most."

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... issue.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://phys.org/news3506.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/scien ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 100541.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technolog ... tissue.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/#.VEnONEnnbVI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agonized Pose Tells of Dinosaur Death Throes
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... roes.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://phys.org/news100445045.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/12 ... ng-deaths/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Monster' Fossil Find in Arctic
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5403570.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New Picture of Dinosaurs Is Emerging
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... osaur.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Clincher...How to Make a Fossil: Part 2– Dinosaur Mummies and Other Soft Tissue
http://www.aaps-journal.org/pdf/How+to+" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... nosaur.pdf
http://www.aaps-journal.org/submission" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;% ... Fossil.pdf

Other Scientific Oddities...[/b]

HUMAN FOSSILS IN SAME ROCK STRATA AS DINOSAURS!
http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%2 ... trata.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ancient Amphibians Left Full-Body Imprints
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancie ... s_999.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Animals Sealed in Stone
http://paranormal.about.com/od/earthmys ... 011704.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Frogs in Stones
http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... tones.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When all's said and done, a stone is just a stone, and a frog is just a frog. But for living frog to be found sealed inside a stone is more than a little puzzling: it's disquieting and potentially sensational, because it hints at the possibility there may be something in the world that lies beyond our comprehension. And then other questions spring to mind. Is our ignorance of this phenomenon merely personal, or is it shared by society as a whole? And if no one has a satisfactory explanation, can we be sure that such an explanation, in terms of known causes and effects, can even be found? A frog in a stone doesn't seem much. But as long as it remains inexplicable it is a threat, however small, to the conception of the universe as a coherent and well-ordered place.

Toad in the Hole
http://www.slightlywarped.com/crapfacto ... ckfrog.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.slightlywarped.com/crapfacto ... ckfrog.jpg

This mummified corpse of a frog was found in a hollow flint 'geode' which was cracked open in 1899 by workmen in a quarry in England. There have been many reports of frogs found inside rocks; some still living in a kind of stupor but which
revived once exposed to the air.
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Frog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Scientist: Frog could be 25 million years old - Tiny amphibian was found completely preserved in amber
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17168489/#.VEnUVknnbVI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First Fossil Brain: Shark Relative That Lived 300 Million Years Ago Yields Very Rare Specimen
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 183128.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How can a spider be fossilized then 165 million years later we can still see its hairs?
http://www.wired.com/2010/02/spider-fossil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Caught in the act: the first record of copulating fossil vertebrates
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... .2012.0361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fossils on Surtsey, Iceland
http://www.vulkaner.no/n/surtsey/esurtfossil.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'You are never to old to learn', it is said. But I must admit that some new kinds of information sounds more like a joke....like the finding of fossils on Surtsey - an island only 39 years old. The fossils where obtained as early as 5 years after the eruption!

Considering the following:

Presto! Instant Petrified Wood Created in Lab
http://www.livescience.com/110-presto-i ... d-lab.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Achieving what would take millions of years in only a few days, scientists have drastically sped up the process of petrifying wood.

Instant petrified wood yields super ceramics
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Instant petrified wood yields super ceramics. [FORMING/PROCESSING]; includes related article links at the bottom.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-134619844.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Related technical papers from Yongsoon Shin
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 51A.f04t04" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Petrified Wood in Days
http://www.physorg.com/news2801.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The material 'replicates exactly the wood architecture,' according to Shin."

Now if fossils can be created (under the right circumstances) in seconds, hours, days, rather than millions of years, is it incumbent upon the science establishment to re-examine the fields of fossils and geology in this new light? I mean, dating of materials is founded on specific assumptions and If new data refutes and overturns those assumptions... Opens up a can of worms.

Consider the following...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophoresis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.capturedlightning.com/frames ... tm#Clinker" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mummified Dinosaurs = Electric Fossilization...??

Electromagnetically Induced Nuclear Beta Decay
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PhRvC..29.1825R" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Observation of the Acceleration by an Electromagnetic Field of Nuclear Beta Decay
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20279471" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A few more interesting and new discoveries that defy evolution...

Oldest Soft-Bodied Marine Fossils Discovered
http://www.livescience.com/6448-oldest- ... vered.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The team—led by Peter Van Roy, a Yale postdoctoral associate, and Derek Briggs, the Frederick William Beinecke Professor of Geology & Geophysics and director of the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History—uncovered more than 1,500 fossils of soft-bodied marine animals in newly discovered sites in southeastern Morocco during a field expedition last year. Many are complete fossils, and include sponges, annelid worms, mollusks and horseshoe crabs—in particular, a species similar to today’s horseshoe crab, which appeared some 30 million years earlier than previously known.

Whatever happened it happened fast. Just how swift would the process of fossilization have to be in oreder to preserve soft tissue? It seems to me it would have to happen in a flash because of 1.) the weight of the strata above and 2.) the presence of cellular structure.

Earthquakes Turn Water into Gold
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/0 ... -into-gold" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gold is made in earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, because of the electricity flowing through the rock transmuting the quartz to gold, and all of the other related metals. , there is no way that all of the chemically diverse metals associated with the gold could be formed by heat or water.

2004 Opportunity Favors the Heretic
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/opportuni ... e-heretic/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SempiternalHarbinger]

The observable and relatively rapid rise of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria in hospitals is one of the more powerful evidences against evolution. Here's the simple reason why...

First of all these bacteria were always resistant, by obvious fact of their existence; they didn't become "immune" [bad/disinformed word choice], or even "develop resistance". The resistant trait was a tiny part of the original diversity of the bacterial [eg. staph or strep] genome. It was selected out by overuse of antibiotics and those hand sanitizer type products which killed their promised 99.99% of the bacteria, leaving only the few resistant bacteria. These otherwise "wimpy" bacteria then had a "sterile" habitat all for themselves, without the natural and beneficial competition of the other varieties. This is why it is advised to get out and play in the dirt, do gardening, etc. to build up the natural diverse flora on the skin as a hedge against "super[wimpy] bacterial infection". This natural selective [micro-evolutionary] scenario is diametrically opposed to the premise of macroevolution, which is to say that no new organisms resulted, only altered population ratios.

This is the same story as the famed peppered moths of Mancester, England. Had Darwin realized this in his day, the [macro]-evolutionary paradigm of the last century would never have taken hold. And Biology would have not been hurt by its absence. The only source for "new" information to drive macroevolution is random mutation, which has such [observably] deleterious immediate and long-term effects that to demand its consistent and informational [yet purely accidental] accumulation as the rule for billions of years, resulting in the myriads of varieties [including us!] from a moneran or "chemical soup" origin, is simply ludicrous. Or at least unscientific. The case for evolution would be helped by a fossil record that showed a gradual development of complex forms over time, but this is not the case either as shown in the above post. Complexity rules from the beginning of the story [eg. the Cambrian explosion] and ancient forms are identifiable by their modern counterparts [eg. the "oldest" bat is 100% bat, identifiably human forms predate their supposed "ancestors", etc.]; not to mention the lack of transitional forms... where there should be primarily transitional forms in the record, we see instead only the rarely alleged candidate, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, which were despite some unusual traits respectively 100% bird and 100% fish.

What about humans, hominids such as the Neanderthal, and the stories we keep seeing in the news about some new human ancestor of the year which is supposedly going to save evolutionism, and what about the 30,000 and 200,000 year time frames involved in those stories?

In order to be descended from something via any process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something. (BYU's Stephen Peck in the podcast light expounds on the assumption of interbreeding.) Thus the curious total lack of any real evidence of modern man ever interbreeding with Neanderthals was always viewed as a big mystery particularly since there was evidence of the two groups living in close proximity for long periods. James Shreeve described the problem in an article published in Discover magazine in the mid 90s:

"Humans love to mate. They mate all the time, by night and by day, through all the phases of the female’s reproductive cycle. Given the opportunity, humans throughout the world will mate with any other human. The barriers between races and cultures, so cruelly evident in other respects, melt away when sex is at stake. Cortés began the systematic annihilation of the Aztec people--but that did not stop him from taking an Aztec princess for his wife. Blacks have been treated with contempt by whites in America since they were first forced into slavery, but some 20 percent of the genes in a typical African American are white. Consider James Cook’s voyages in the Pacific in the eighteenth century. Cook’s men would come to some distant land, and lining the shore were all these very bizarre-looking human beings with spears, long jaws, browridges, archeologist Clive Gamble of Southampton University in England told me. God, how odd it must have seemed to them. But that didn’t stop the Cook crew from making a lot of little Cooklets.

Project this universal human behavior back into the Middle Paleolithic. When Neanderthals and modern humans came into contact in the Levant, they would have interbred, no matter how strange they might initially have seemed to each other. If their cohabitation stretched over tens of thousands of years, the fossils should show a convergence through time toward a single morphological pattern, or at least some swapping of traits back and forth.

But the evidence just isn’t there, not if the TL and ESR dates are correct. Instead the Neanderthals stay staunchly themselves. In fact, according to some recent ESR dates, the least Neanderthalish among them is also the oldest. The full Neanderthal pattern is carved deep at the Kebara cave, around 60,000 years ago. The moderns, meanwhile, arrive very early at Qafzeh and Skhul and never lose their modern aspect. Certainly, it is possible that at any moment new fossils will be revealed that conclusively demonstrate the emergence of a Neandermod lineage. From the evidence in hand, however, the most likely conclusion is that Neanderthals and modern humans were not interbreeding in the Levant..."

And then in the late 1990s results of DNA studies of Neanderthal remains began to come in and cleared up the mystery:
http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/f ... 55423.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"He said his team ran four separate tests for authenticity - checking whether other amino acids had survived, making sure the DNA sequences they found did not exist in modern humans, making sure the DNA could be replicated in their own lab and then getting other labs to duplicate their results. Comparisons with the DNA of modern humans and of apes showed the Neanderthal was about halfway between a modern human and a chimpanzee."

That's right: the Neanderthal was basically an advanced ape whose DNA was almost exactly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, and we could no more interbreed with Neanderthals than we could with horses. Even the prestigious PlosBiology system gave up on the idea (No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans).
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.0020057" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Clearly that should have been the end of any talk about modern humans having evolved from hominids since all other hominids were significantly FURTHER removed from us THAN the Neanderthal. Nonetheless evolutionists go on talking about a "common ancestor(TM) for both ourselves and Neanderthals, 500,000 years back. That of course is idiotic; it's as if somebody had discovered some reason why dogs could not be descended from wolves, and the evolutionists were to claim that therefore they (dogs) must be descended directly from fish.

Again, what about the time frames? We've seen that the time frames we read about for dinosaurs are totally FUBAR, what about the 50,000 and 200,000 and 500,000 year time spans you read about for supposed human ancestors? Do evolutionists have the sort of time they'd need to even be talking about hominid/human evolution?

Gunnar Heinsohn is best/brightest category in European academia and a frequent speaker at NATO gatherings since his population youth bulge theories predict political unrest with near 100% accuracy; he's also a major player in the ongoing efforts to reconstruct Med-basin chronologies. His "Wie Alt ist das Menschengeschlect" describes the problem with the dating schemes typically associated with Neanderthal studies:

Mueller-Karpe, the first name in continental paleoanthropology, wrote thirty years ago on the two strata of homo erectus at Swanscombe/England: "A difference between the tools in the upper and in the lower stratum is not recognizable. (From a geological point of view it is uncertain if between the two strata there passed decades, centuries or millennia.)" (Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, Vol I, Munich 1966, p. 293).

The outstanding scholar never returned to this hint that in reality there may have passed ten years where the textbooks enlist one thousand years. Yet, I tried to follow this thread. I went to the stratigraphies of the Old Stone Age which usually look as follows

modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)

Neanderthal man (homo sapiens neanderthalensis)

Homo erectus (invents fire and is considered the first intelligent man).

In my book "Wie alt ist das Menschengeschlecht?" [How Ancient is Man?], 1996, 2nd edition, I focused for Neanderthal man on his best preserved stratigraphy: Combe Grenal in France. Within 4 m of debris it exhibited 55 strata dated conventionally between -90,000 and -30,000. Roughly one millennium was thus assigned to some 7 cm of debris per stratum. Close scrutiny had revealed that most strata were only used in the summer. Thus, ca. one thousand summers were assigned to each stratum. If, however, the site lay idle in winter and spring one would have expected substratification. Ideally, one would look for one thousand substrata for the one thousand summers. Yet, not even two substrata were discovered in any of the strata. They themselves were the substrata in the 4 m stratigraphy. They, thus, were not good for 60,000 but only for 55 years.

I tested this assumption with the tool count. According to the Binfords' research--done on North American Indians--each tribal adult has at least five tool kits with some eight tools in each of them. At every time 800 tools existed in a band of 20 adults. Assuming that each tool lasted an entire generation (15 female years), Combe Grenals 4,000 generations in 60,000 years should have produced some 3.2 million tools. By going closer to the actual life time of flint tools tens of millions of tools would have to be expected for Combe Grenal. Ony 19,000 (nineteen thousand) remains of tools, however, were found by the excavators.

There seems to be no way out but to cut down the age of Neanderthal man at Combe Grenal from some 60,000 to some 60 years.

Apply the stratigraphical approach to the best caves in Europe for the entire time from Erectus to the Iron Age and reached at the following tentative chronology for intelligent man:

-600 onwards Iron Age
-900 onwards Bronze Age
-1400 beginning of modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)
-1500 beginning of Neanderthal man
between -2000 and -1600 beginning of Erectus.

Since Erectus only left the two poor strata like at Swanscombe or El-Castillo/Spain, he should actually not have lasted longer than Neanderthal-may be one average life expectancy. I will now not go into the mechanism of mutation. All I want to remind you of is the undisputed sequence of interstratification and monostratification in the master stratigraphies. This allows for one solution only: Parents of the former developmental stage of man lived together with their own offspring in the same cave stratum until they died out. They were not massacred as textbooks have it:

monostrat.: only modern man's tools

interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and modern man's tools side by side

monostrat.: only Neanderthal man's tools

interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and Erectus' tools side by side

monotstrat.: only Erectus tools (deepest stratum for intelligent man)

The year figures certainly sound bewildering. Yet, so far nobody came up with any stratigraphy justifiably demanding more time than I tentatively assigned to the age of intelligent man. I always remind my critiques that one millennium is an enormous time span--more than from William the Conqueror to today's Anglo-World. To add a millenium to human history should always go together with sufficient material remains to show for it. I will not even mention the easiness with which scholars add a million years to the history of man until they made Lucy 4 million years old. The time-span-madness is the last residue of Darwinism.

Heinsohn is not putting an exact age on the Neanderthal die-out; what he IS stating is that there is no legitimate interpretation of existing evidence which would indicate that they died out any more than four or five thousand years ago and that is basically consistent with the thing about raw dinosaur meat. Nonetheless the genetic gap between a Neanderthal and one of us is enormous. What you're talking about is creatures being able to perceive some new requirement on the horizon and modify their own morphology in major ways from one generation to the next, and you might want to call this a question of semantics but to me that is genetic re-engineering and not evolution.

That of course is nowhere remotely close to the time frames which any sort of an evolutionary scheme of modern man from hominids would require. We are left with two basic choices:

1.) Modern man was created from the dust of the earth and recently
2.) Modern man was brought here, transported from somewhere else in the cosmos and recently. [saltation]

Those are your two basic choices and none of them involve evolution.

Cheers!

[Grudunza]

What does a duck say?

Amusing that you fully accept a lot of outdated, pseudo, and misapplied science, but do not accept the *actual* science... which clearly backs up evolution. These are old ideas from creationist websites which have been countered for a long time, or rendered obsolete by new information (e.g., this year has seen several news stories about the confirmation of human/Neanderthal interbreeding).

And the logic you try to use against evolution with some of that would utterly crush your own conclusions... For example, how could you possibly explain the speciation that exists now resulting from the incredibly short amount of time that you propose it existed. Or do you take Noah's Ark figuratively? Even so, a few thousand years is not nearly enough time to produce what we have today.

[braingrunt]

I watched both eye segments. While they were helpful in broadly mapping out a possible development path for the eye, there were some places where I got hung up. #1 they started with photosensitive cells which may or may be a big deal. But their development would be something I'd like to know about. #2 in the earliest stages of the eye, what advantage is there to photo cells lining up in any way? Wouldn't a random scattering of such cells be more likely, and would it not be possible for the nervous system to process? It seems to me that with the random scattering over the organism, you get direction-of-light sensitivity right off the bat--an advantage over lined-up cells, which according to the video, need another evolutionary step, of gradually concaving, in order to gain direction-of-light sensitivity. In short, random distribution seems both more likely, and with an early advantage to me. #3 the part where the eye started to go from concave to enclosed left me with questions. I know the distant goal is focus, because you need a small aperature to focus light on a surface. However, would focus really improve worth anything until you got near the required specifications? Just my limited experience with optics makes me think focus is a fiddly thing, so in short I have doubts about the steady, near term advantages which would push eyes down this path. Meanwhile you'd be decreasing the incoming light, which seems to me like a disadvantage. #4 It seems to me that any initial attempt to fully enclose the eye would be a disadvantage in terms of inbound light although I imagine there is a tradeoff of protection. #5 seems to me any initial attempt to form the lens would be a disadvantage in terms of inbound light.

I don't pretend to be an expert but I still don't feel my doubts explained away.

Some of the debunking of creationist objections, I am also dissatisfied with. I remain an agnostic to evolution, and frankly it would take more study than I am likely to give it, in order to really begin to develop faith in (largely unguided) evolution; especially when I already have some degree of faith in something else.

[Gideon]

Here's a link to a YouTube video about eye evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Cosmos segment is more involved and better depicted. If you have Netflix, it's on there now in episode 2.

I was only able to watch the first few seconds, but it prompted a few questions, I will have more after I listen to the rest of it:

Where did the first light sensitive cell come from?
Why did it come?
How long did it take to evolve?
How did mollusks survive until it evolved?
Why does it convert light to an electrical signal?
How does it convert light to an electrical signal?
How did it develop a connection to the brain?
Why did it develop a connection to the brain?
Why are there more than one light sensitive cells?
If the brain of the mollusk evolved first, did it have to change later to accommodate incoming signals from the light sensitive cell, or was evolution intelligent enough to design the mollusk brain so that it was ready for light when evolution got around to evolving light cells?

[SempiternalHarbinger]

What does a duck say?

Amusing that you fully accept a lot of outdated, pseudo, and misapplied science, but do not accept the *actual* science... which clearly backs up evolution. These are old ideas from creationist websites which have been countered for a long time, or rendered obsolete by new information (e.g., this year has seen several news stories about the confirmation of human/Neanderthal interbreeding).

And the logic you try to use against evolution with some of that would utterly crush your own conclusions... For example, how could you possibly explain the speciation that exists now resulting from the incredibly short amount of time that you propose it existed. Or do you take Noah's Ark figuratively? Even so, a few thousand years is not nearly enough time to produce what we have today.

Hey Grudunza, Why so defensive? Typical response from a evolutionist. Ignore everything that doesn't fit in your square peg. This is modern science at it's best. Don't address any evidence that goes against the theory, but rather attack, belittle, discredit, mock and scorn all those who say all is not well or have a differing of opinion. And I'm sorry, *actual science* does not begin with mathematics or theoretical assumptions which is exactly the science you subscribe to.

Like I said, evolution is not compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ in any way. It's mind blowing how evolutionist twist scripture to fit their personal interpretations. This is exactly what Peter warned us against. Truth cuts its own way brother and truth and light are not on the side of evolution. This is an absolute truth.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20 )

In other words, we need to let the words of the prophets speak for themselves. Since you don't want to discuss evidence that disputes evolution, lets discuss some scriptures. With 2 Peter 1:20 in mind, lets continue on with Peter who specifically warns us against the very teachings and doctrines you are proclaiming as truth and real science...

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Pretty clear to me. "for the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." This is evolution and big bang cosmology to a tee. No personal interpretation needed because it is self evident. And what does Peter say of those proclaiming such nonsense? Peter says they are ignorant. And what exactly are they ignorant of? The heavens of old which evolution doesn't have the slightest insights on. They are the scoffers Peter is talking about.

"Whereby, the world that then was (before the flood)...Perished." This completely goes against the theory evolution and big bang cosmology. Peter makes it clear that the heaven and earth we now experience today is a recent development and are the effects of Noah's flood, or the dividing of the earth in the days of Peleg. And it has been prophesied that the earth and heavens will be changed yet again in the events of the last days in similar fashion as before. These changes will not take millions or thousands of years. The whole landscape of Earth change in merely 3 days at the death of the Savior. (valleys to mountains, mountains to valleys)That is if you believe the prophets over science. Global evidence shows that Mother Earth and the planets within our solar system have a very violent past in recent memory. Just take a look at Mars Valley Marineris, which makes our grand canyon look like child's play. The features here on Earth CANNOT be explained through the lenses of evolution. What we have today is not the results of a gradual, constant rate over millions of years. I can tell you that all the pre determined conclusion modern science comes up with cannot be correct because it is all based on false and wrong ideas. If you don't have the correct facts it is impossible to come to the correct conclusions and a correct understanding.



The Pearl of Great Price expounds on at least 6 worldwide catastrophic events that resulted in the passing of one heaven and earth, and the birth of a new heaven and earth. The myths and rituals of all ancient cultures corroborate the Pearl of Great Price. This is exactly how Hugh Nibley vindicates Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham in his masterpiece "One Eternal Round." And the real difference between Joseph Smith and modern Egyptologist is Joseph believed in the myths and that they portrayed actual historical events whereas Egyptologist and evolutionist believe the myths to be stories of crazy people, no truth. No wonder they say Joseph Smith got the BOA all wrong. But Joseph was right and the spirit has bore witness to me these truths. I guess it depends on who one puts his trust in. But the unlocking of these truth cannot be had through the lenses of evolution. I'll take Joseph Smith and the spirit over the theories of Darwin. I'll take one Nikola Tesla over a million Einstein's.

The destruction of the Tower of Babel, Enoch's glorious "temple" city departing, Noah's flood, Joshua's long day, the miracles and plagues of the exodus, the creation were in fact real, historical global catastrophic events. And according to the Torah these events covered the surface of the Earth to a great depth. The events created a new surface. Because these events are described in the Torah, I guess I'm a creationist.

Evolution and big bang cosmology say these events were nothing but fantasy stories. Fables. So why would anyone trust any Egyptologist or modern science when they start there search with the basic premise that Abraham, Moses, Enoch were not real people, they did not exist. I refuse to put any trust in the arm of flesh or put any trust in the scoffers and learned and educated of the world. I refuse to put trust in the godless. All these ideas will go down as worse than those who believed in a flat earth. I mean who can honestly believe in a black holes? Yet not one person on earth has ever seen one. But wait, they tell us we cant see them because the are invisible. Right. They use to swallow all light, now they swallow up all light and at the same time spew out light. The big bang universe begins without laws, and ends [black holes] without laws. Just absurd.

Furthermore, evolution begins contrary to observation with spontaneous generation, continues with an impossible yet persistent accumulation of errors, proceeds "from simple to complex" evidenced only by the existence of highly complex forms, and leads to a philosophy of life based entirely on meaningless randomness. Or perhaps Nazism.

Joseph Smith said the Book of Revelations was the plainest book to ever be written. Now either Joseph was wrong or there is a good explanation to why none of our prophets and leaders can read the plainest book to ever be written. They cannot read because it is sealed unto them, for it is sealed to the learned of the world. What folks don't understand is John draws on PAST events to describe FUTURE events. (ONE ETERNAL ROUND) Joseph Smith, the Savior, and all the prophets of old foretell the destruction in the last days, for the earth will be burned with fire. I see no reason not to take them at their word. It is also promised that there will be a new heaven and a new earth. These events of the past that John uses is what evolution denies and mocks. The events in the old testament are crazy to evolutionist, for they cannot account for any of it, for it is impossible in the false paradigm of evolution.

And that's the thing with John, you can look at it two ways, 1.) the destruction of the old heaven and earth or 2.) the creation of a new heaven and earth. This is why John uses so much imagery of past ancient cultures and why you find the same imagery when reading about the creation or the destructions of civilizations. It is prophesied that earth will return to a pervious state but will be glorified. It's the previous state of the earth evolutionist deny. When did the Sun become our light?? According to Moses, the sun didn't become our light until the 4th day. According to evolution the sun has been earths sun for millions of years. Yet every ancient culture were in fact sun worshipper. Shoot, the Hebrews even named the Sabbath after the sun. The problem is the sun that all ancient cultures depict has no relation to our sun today and in no way to be confused with our sun today.

And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new. -Ether 12:9

"Shall be like unto the old but new." Modern science denies and scoffs at the notion of a different heaven and earth other than the one we now live and experience. But all the evidence is there, you just have to know where to look.

And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided. -D&C 133:24

...the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. -Acts 3:21

For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fullness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea. And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth.(D&C 29:23, 24.)

... and all things shall become new... The New doesn't come about over millions of years of evolving but rather in a very short time period.

“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (Revelation 21:1.)

Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be "quickened" again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it. -D&C 88:26

Parley P Pratt on the restoration of all things...

The stars [planets] which will fall to earth are fragments, which have been broken off from the earth from time to time in the mighty convulsions of nature …. These all must be restored again at the ‘times of restitution of all things.’ …When these fragments (some of which are vastly larger than the present earth) are brought back and joined to this earth, it will cause a convulsion of all nature …. The mountains will flow down, the valley rise, the sea retire to its own place, the islands and continents will be removed, and the earth be rolled together as a scroll.” (The Millennial Star, 1:258.)

The passing of old heavens and earths and the creation of new heaven and earth is not only found in the scriptures but can be found in the testimonies of all ancient civilizations. You can call it the one story told from around the world. Something Evolution flat denies. These drastic changes have happen within human memory and they happened fast, in hours, days if you will. But evolution insist such changes need millions of years. This is why all ancient cultures lived in fear. And what has happened in the past will most assuredly happen in the near future. All the changes that have happened and are about to happen again and cannot be understood in anyway from a evolution paradigm. It mocks these changes in the past.

Amusing that you fully accept a lot of outdated, pseudo, and misapplied science, but do not accept the *actual* science... which clearly backs up evolution.

Yes, your right, we subscribe to a completely different science and theology. But you don't know me nor anything of the science I subscribe to. You assume to know but you have no idea, just like evolution being able to explain human origins . Those who have been on the forum long enough know where I stand...
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=21475" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And there is a perfectly good reason why your "pseudo" science backs up evolution... That's because they ignore everything that proves it wrong and everything that isn't a square peg. They become precondition to refute anything that goes against their preconceived notions. If it doesn't fit they throw it by the wayside. No new light, no new discoveries to be made because evolution already explains it all. Anything that is not a square peg is thrown out.

And speaking of outdated science... "Sun made of hydrogen" the thermonuclear fusion sun model? Mind boggling how we claim to know so much about the universe yet we don't have the slightest clue how our own sun operates. And the crazy thing is all the anomalies that are continuing to come in from space on a day to day basis, that have not been predicted or expected can be easily explained through one agency, electricity. With a understanding of plasma and it's electrifying behavior all the anomalies disappear. In fact, all these anomalies are predicted though the lenses electricity. I prefer a science that actually makes successful prediction rather than a science that has a long history of failed predictions. And what exactly did Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, or Stephen Hawking's know about electricity? Absolutely nothing.

My thoughts on this matter may seem harsh and I will say they are not directed at you but more so the science of evolution and big bang cosmology which are in direct conflict with the restored gospel. I'm sorry if you take it personal. I am not trying to offend just sharing the other side which I know is the side of truth.

Lectures on Faith which expounds on the divine science of theology. The Key to the Science of Theology by Parley P Pratt which expounds on it even more. Read D&C 93, D&C 88, D&C 84. Search understanding and the meaning of the Pearl of Great Price. But I should tell you that these books are not for the learned, the educated and those who put their trust in the modern science establishment. These notions are not to be mixed with prophecy. These books are sealed to the learned. And as long as you embrace all these false notions they will always be sealed to you never having the slightest clue how God goes about his electrifying and all powerful work. It is sealed to those who bring in personal interpretation. Just as Peter warned against. And what is truth?

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;" D&C 93:24

What is intelligence?
What is Eternity?

Cheers.

[cayenne]

http://www.infowars.com/the-popes-embra ... -religion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Hey Grudunza, I see you are still pushing Darwin's evolution. No comments on Peter's most profound statement that evolution is for those who are asleep and ignorant? But why would we trust Peter or Joseph Smith over our high tech science today? What could the prophets of old possibly know that modern science doesn't?? That's the argument that has to be made because they are not compatible and both cant be right. Peter speaks harsh words against your beliefs and you just throw his words by the wayside because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions. I see why it's so easy to disregard ancient testimony with these false notions. Who in there right mind would believe Darwin's theory's over revelations from God? What is more reliable source of truth than personal revelation? If evolution is correct than we can throw out all our scriptures and just label them fiction. Very little truth left. We can also conclude Joseph Smith was a false prophet because the Book of Abraham teaches the complete opposite of modern science own creation story. Or maybe it was Joseph and the Egyptians who where the ignorant ones.

Interesting that Peter calls those pushing evolution ignorant since that is exactly what Joseph said. “… We cannot believe that the ancients in all ages were so ignorant of the system of heaven as many suppose." It's modern science that is ignorant of ancient history. I am just mind blown how many saints in recent years have embraced these utterly false notions. But you seem to be happy with this movement. Where our prophets at? Why are our leaders quiet on these matters? Clearly they are as clueless as those who follow. The blind leading the blind, and they “choke on a gnat and gulp down a camel” (see Matthew 23:23)

I promise that every person who buys into the theory of evolution will always be in the dark when it comes to revelations. As long as one holds on to these false beliefs ancient history, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, John the Revelator and many other prophecies will always be sealed. They will never know the profound truths of the gospel because there false beliefs wont allow them to.

There is a good reason why people are fleeing from Christ and Christianity altogether in epic fashion in these last days. And the main reason is modern science. It is a fact that modern science leads people away from Christ. What kind of science can lead so many away from Christ and yet be true? Is the anything in this world that has caused more disbelief in God than modern science? The answer is clearly NO. When did bad fruit all of a sudden be consider good? (Scriptures do say in the last days that bad fruit will be considered good.)What good fruit leads away from Christ? Truths lead to Christ not lead folks away. Either way, some of the most profound truths are available today that builds faith in Christ and increases our understanding, but people just cant seem to let go of there false beliefs.

[Grudunza]

BY: "Every discovery in science and art that is true and useful to mankind has been given by direct revelation from God, though but few acknowledge it."

ETB: "Truth is truth, whether labeled science or religion."

BYU biology professor Steven Peck in 2010: "Evolution by natural selection is the most important scientific discovery of modern times (I am stoically unapologetic about the lack of equivocation in that statement). The evidences for it are staggeringly abundant, detailed, and scientifically undeniable."

Do we believe in continuing revelation and further light and knowledge or not? If evolution is true (i.e., scientifically undeniable), then it has been given by direct revelation from God. Inasmuch as we demonize it and reject it, then we are closing ourselves off and in the dark to further revelation. There it is... further direct revelation, and YOU are rejecting it.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

BY: "Every discovery in science and art that is true and useful to mankind has been given by direct revelation from God, though but few acknowledge it."

ETB: "Truth is truth, whether labeled science or religion."

I agree with those quotes. Problems is evolution is not true and is not based on real science. So it could not have come from God. Evolution derived out of the wild imaginations of a few uninspired people and It's risky business to believe in a science that teaches to disbelieve the accuracy and validity of the scriptures. Modern Science has turned the "truth" upside down. Name one useful thing that has derived out of evolution? Nothing. The only thing it brings to the table is confusion. Bottom line is they both cannot be right.

Here is another one by Ezra Taft Benson...

“There never can be conflict between revealed religion and scientific fact.” -Ezra Taft Benson

Yet, here we have evolution, big bang cosmology, general relativity, etc... (modern science) that are all in direct conflict with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. This is an absolute fact. You believe so called science over the holy word of God and It's because of this false belief you have conformed scriptures to your liking and disregarded scriptures that conflict. Not a recipe to discover truth. Evolution is not true and that's why the two stand toe to toe against each other. Maybe that's why you refuse to discuss any scriptures or scientific facts that show your beliefs to be wrong.

And that's the problem Grudunza, the reason for the conflicts is because science has it ALL wrong. All of it is based on false assumptions and It's not true, it's not revelation. You are being deceived if you believe evolution is truth or that it has been proven as a real scientific fact. It hasn't proven anything except hurt peoples faith in God. And it keeps you from learning real truths and real history. The evidence is everywhere but you wont see it until you shed your false beliefs. How can we rely on a few uninspired men assumptions over the scriptures? Evolution doesn't explain anything nor does it explain all the evidence flowing in because everything coming in contradicts it.

BYU biology professor Steven Peck in 2010: "Evolution by natural selection is the most important scientific discovery of modern times If true that is so sad and chances are there is no God. (I am stoically unapologetic about the lack of equivocation in that statement). The evidences for it are staggeringly abundant, detailed, and scientifically undeniable." No it's not. It's the opposite.

Do we believe in continuing revelation and further light and knowledge or not? We should, but clearly we don't. But I can say I do. You act like those who don't agree with evolution are not interested in light. There is no knowledge to be had from evolution. If evolution is true It's not.(i.e., scientifically undeniable),scientifically unproven and never will be proven. then it has been given by direct revelation from God. It wasn't revelation so it could have come from God. Darwin was no prophet, seer or revelator. Origins of Species is not scripture nor inspired. Joseph on the other hand was a prophet, seer, and revelator and the BOM did come by way of revelation.
Inasmuch as we demonize it and reject it, then we are closing ourselves off and in the dark to further revelation. There it is... further direct revelation, and YOU are rejecting it.Hells yes I reject it and speak for yourself. You should tell that to the millions of Christians and Mormons who have left Christianity and God altogether over evolution and Modern Science? Try telling that to my former Elders Quorum Pres. who left church over Darwin's evolution and the BOA. He is godless now like many others. Where is the light in that? He put his trust in the arm of flesh and did not trust the spirit. Truth brings you closer to God, it doesn't make one lose all faith. The fruits are not good and that's why I reject it. Break free from the heard and start doing your own thinking and start seeking further light and knowledge.

[Thomas]

Semp. I am wondering what your ideas are for the origins of mankind. I am sure you know that Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man like us.if the debate is about the origins of mankind, then creationism could not answer the question.

Whether you believe God was once a man or not the origins of God must be explained to explain creationism. The intelligent design argument is that life is to complex to happen by chance. I have heard the tornado in the junk yard didn't create a airplane logic. But the creationism story relies on an even more complex being (God) spontaneously appearing on the seen and it seems nobody feels like they need to explain how that happened. A rational person should see the hole in the logic. Man is too complex to spontaneously appear but God is not. Go figure.

To be clear, I believe in God. He has communed with me so I know he is real. However there must be some point in time when life started with God being part of it. Our God most likely had a God above him and so forth. Some how some way life either evolved to a point where life produced Gods or God just popped into thin air out of nothing. Both scenarios are impossible. But one is true.if God could just pop into thin air so could we.

In any case I don't believe it is a matter of evolution means no God. The debate would try to box us into two options.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Semp. I am wondering what your ideas are for the origins of mankind. I am sure you know that Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man like us.if the debate is about the origins of mankind, then creationism could not answer the question.

Whether you believe God was once a man or not the origins of God must be explained to explain creationism. The intelligent design argument is that life is to complex to happen by chance. I have heard the tornado in the junk yard didn't create a airplane logic. But the creationism story relies on an even more complex being (God) spontaneously appearing on the seen and it seems nobody feels like they need to explain how that happened. A rational person should see the hole in the logic. Man is too complex to spontaneously appear but God is not. Go figure.

To be clear, I believe in God. He has communed with me so I know he is real. However there must be some point in time when life started with God being part of it. Our God most likely had a God above him and so forth. Some how some way life either evolved to a point where life produced Gods or God just popped into thin air out of nothing. Both scenarios are impossible. But one is true.if God could just pop into thin air so could we.

In any case I don't believe it is a matter of evolution means no God. The debate would try to box us into two options.

Hey Thomas! Long time brother. So my post accidently got deleted so maybe another time I will share my personal thoughts on the matter. But, I probably should tell you that I don't have a place in any of the traditional schools. I think both Evolution and Creationist are wrong and I don't value much of anything that comes from either side. So I am not trying to point out the flaws of evolution so folks can come running over to another limited paradigm that believes the earth is only 6.000 years old or anything like that. But I do believe we do know some absolute eternal truths that can never be broken and when you know and understand these laws all the bad crap sticks out like a sore thumb. I believe Creationist, Evolution and the entire modern day science establishment are wrong because they are based on false assumptions. None of it can be trusted IMO.

I totally reject the idea of creation out of nothing. Sounds like you reject it to. It's why I reject modern science and Christianity interpretations of the creation altogether. Big Bang = nothing to something... General Relativity = something can act on nothing. Evolution is interconnected with the two. The principal of cause and effect have been instilled in me. So to have the entire science establishment foundation based on no cause tells me the mathematical assumptions are severely wrong and not to be trusted. There is always a cause. In other words there is no such thing as bending time and space (something can act on nothing, no cause) because it goes against Gods laws of eternal nature. Yet, most members of the church believe in GR. Go figure.

When describing General Relativity the great Stephen Hawkings said "Spontaneous creation out of nothing is the reason why there is something rather than nothing." The scriptures make it clear that bending time and space is impossible..

I think evolution equates to no god and I think creationist pretend to know God. Just like the whole republican and democrat debates. So what options do I have left?

[Bee Prepared]

Semp, would you do a post on Vaccines? I would like your take on it. I have read many of your posts and always hear truth in them.

[oklds]

BY: "Every discovery in science and art that is true and useful to mankind has been given by direct revelation from God, though but few acknowledge it."

ETB: "Truth is truth, whether labeled science or religion."

I agree with those quotes. Problems is evolution is not true and is not based on real science. So it could not have come from God. Evolution derived out of the wild imaginations of a few uninspired people and It's risky business to believe in a science that teaches to disbelieve the accuracy and validity of the scriptures. Modern Science has turned the "truth" upside down. Name one useful thing that has derived out of evolution? Nothing. The only thing it brings to the table is confusion. Bottom line is they both cannot be right.

Here is another one by Ezra Taft Benson...

“There never can be conflict between revealed religion and scientific fact.” -Ezra Taft Benson

Yet, here we have evolution, big bang cosmology, general relativity, etc... (modern science) that are all in direct conflict with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. This is an absolute fact. You believe so called science over the holy word of God and It's because of this false belief you have conformed scriptures to your liking and disregarded scriptures that conflict. Not a recipe to discover truth. Evolution is not true and that's why the two stand toe to toe against each other. Maybe that's why you refuse to discuss any scriptures or scientific facts that show your beliefs to be wrong.

And that's the problem Grudunza, the reason for the conflicts is because science has it ALL wrong. All of it is based on false assumptions and It's not true, it's not revelation. You are being deceived if you believe evolution is truth or that it has been proven as a real scientific fact. It hasn't proven anything except hurt peoples faith in God. And it keeps you from learning real truths and real history. The evidence is everywhere but you wont see it until you shed your false beliefs. How can we rely on a few uninspired men assumptions over the scriptures? Evolution doesn't explain anything nor does it explain all the evidence flowing in because everything coming in contradicts it.

BYU biology professor Steven Peck in 2010: "Evolution by natural selection is the most important scientific discovery of modern times If true that is so sad and chances are there is no God. (I am stoically unapologetic about the lack of equivocation in that statement). The evidences for it are staggeringly abundant, detailed, and scientifically undeniable." No it's not. It's the opposite.

Do we believe in continuing revelation and further light and knowledge or not? We should, but clearly we don't. But I can say I do. You act like those who don't agree with evolution are not interested in light. There is no knowledge to be had from evolution. If evolution is true It's not.(i.e., scientifically undeniable),scientifically unproven and never will be proven. then it has been given by direct revelation from God. It wasn't revelation so it could have come from God. Darwin was no prophet, seer or revelator. Origins of Species is not scripture nor inspired. Joseph on the other hand was a prophet, seer, and revelator and the BOM did come by way of revelation.
Inasmuch as we demonize it and reject it, then we are closing ourselves off and in the dark to further revelation. There it is... further direct revelation, and YOU are rejecting it.Hells yes I reject it and speak for yourself. You should tell that to the millions of Christians and Mormons who have left Christianity and God altogether over evolution and Modern Science? Try telling that to my former Elders Quorum Pres. who left church over Darwin's evolution and the BOA. He is godless now like many others. Where is the light in that? He put his trust in the arm of flesh and did not trust the spirit. Truth brings you closer to God, it doesn't make one lose all faith. The fruits are not good and that's why I reject it. Break free from the heard and start doing your own thinking and start seeking further light and knowledge.

Something to think about. If we were created by some sort of biological accident, why is it that we all (birds, cows, horses, goats, sheep, rabbits, dogs, cats, giraffes, alligators, flies, gophers, an infinitum...):

Have four limbs, Have one mouth, Have two ears, Have two eyes, Have one nose (with two nostrils), Have identical aspiration systems, Have two lungs, Have one heart, Have one liver, Have on bladder, Have two kidneys; again, the list goes one ad infinitum... If all that's not enough: We even poop and pee and procreate the same way.

Inly a complete moron would call that an accident....

[larsenb]

Regarding Evolution:

It never ceases to amaze me how intelligent and insightful Evolution is. Evolution gets credit for everything. Evolution is brilliant; it can actually walk and chew gum all at the same time. Evolution knows exactly what it is doing. Evolution can sing, dance, and conduct symphonies all at the same time across the whole surface of this planet. Evolution never has to backtrack. Evolution can actually turn slime into a frog; no human on this planet is smart enough to do that. Where did it get such brains and smarts? Where did Evolution learn how to be so perfect at what it does? Where did Evolution get its training and skills? Where did Evolution go to school and get all those advanced degrees that it holds? Where did Evolution learn how to do advanced genetic engineering? Where did Evolution learn how to do everything and do it well?

Evolution is immortal. Evolution never gets it wrong, because Evolution is apparently the smartest creation in the universe. I want to go to the same university that Evolution went to, if only I could be so lucky and smart and had eons of time to study and perfect it all. Evolution must be the name of the first immortal cell that intelligently put itself together so that it could live, thrive, and reproduce without killing itself in the process. I'm just in awe at the foresight that Evolution has, if only I could be so crafty, creative, cunning, prophetic, and intelligent. Evolution sounds like it is a godsend, because it knows how to do everything that needs to be done and knows exactly when it needs to be done. I sure would like to have its resume. Let's all raise a salute to Mr. and Mrs. Evolution, the father and mother of all life on this planet. If only you and I could be so perfect and good; but, we're only human after all. Evolution is a god.


Over time, I have noticed that many scientists ascribe prescient cognitive powers to Evolution treating it as if it is intelligent and alive. They often talk about Evolution using the exact same terms that creationists use with God -- Evolution did this; Evolution accomplished that; Evolution designed a separate pathway; Evolution created all life on this planet; Evolution took awhile to do all of this but he got the job done in the end; Evolution is true and supreme. I came to realize that for many atheists, Evolution is their god, and they actually personify it and ascribe to it god-like magical powers. Anywhere that they use the word Evolution, you can safely substitute the word God, and their sentences will still make sense. In fact, there are times when their sentences will actually make a lot more sense, if you simply substitute the word "God" for the word "evolution". Try it sometime. You'll be amazed.

http://ofgodandgoddesses.blogspot.com/2 ... ution.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is good, and well written. But did you write it? Just my pet peeve on forums where people post something and you're left not knowing whether the poster wrote it or not. Your link at bottom is broken for me.

Why not just say: This is from xxxxx written by yyyy at the front of your post. And even put the whole thing in the thread quotes provided.

[larsenb]

Just for the record, James E. Talmage "believed" in evolution. He taught it and even delivered a couple talks on the topic, he didn't see any conflict between evolution and the Gospel.

You can add John A. Widstoe, B.H. Roberts, and David O. McKay to James E. Talmage, because each one expressed some kind of belief in the theory of evolution. However, you cannot add Hugh Nibley, Bruce R. McConkie, or Joseph Fielding Smith to the list, because they resisted or fought Evolution to the end of their lives.

Thirty years ago, my BYU biology professor told me that evolution is true and that there is no other way to explain the origin of life on this earth. Since then, I have found the book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton to be extremely useful towards greater understanding of the topic. Recently, a friend showed me a video entitled, "Darwin's Dilemma", which changed the way that I look at Evolution. I wish I would have had access to these books and videos thirty years ago when I was in college.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory- ... 91756152X/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Dilemma-S ... 002MZTSRM/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some people are starting to be able to see through all the smoke and mirrors.

I'm curious what the main arguments are posted by Denton and Meyer in their books. Can you synopsize them?

Also, Nibley at least indirectly opposed 'organic evolution' as being strictly from the bottom up, i.e., that all life simply arose from matter w/no input from above. He ridiculed the idea that the main support of the evolutionary process was is to simply throw more time at it . . . . i.e., if you give enough time to an evolutionary jump, your bound to get a given chance mutation that supports the jump.

[larsenb]

Just for the record, James E. Talmage "believed" in evolution. He taught it and even delivered a couple talks on the topic, he didn't see any conflict between evolution and the Gospel.

But for the record, I'm left not knowing whether Talmage believed in organic evolution as strictly natural selection of advantageous genetic mutations or what . . . like a 'directed evolution' with outside influence coming from an outside intelligence.

Any idea?

[EdGoble]

Regarding Evolution:

It never ceases to amaze me how intelligent and insightful Evolution is. Evolution gets credit for everything. Evolution is brilliant; it can actually walk and chew gum all at the same time. Evolution knows exactly what it is doing. Evolution can sing, dance, and conduct symphonies all at the same time across the whole surface of this planet. Evolution never has to backtrack. Evolution can actually turn slime into a frog; no human on this planet is smart enough to do that. Where did it get such brains and smarts? Where did Evolution learn how to be so perfect at what it does? Where did Evolution get its training and skills? Where did Evolution go to school and get all those advanced degrees that it holds? Where did Evolution learn how to do advanced genetic engineering? Where did Evolution learn how to do everything and do it well?

Evolution is immortal. Evolution never gets it wrong, because Evolution is apparently the smartest creation in the universe. I want to go to the same university that Evolution went to, if only I could be so lucky and smart and had eons of time to study and perfect it all. Evolution must be the name of the first immortal cell that intelligently put itself together so that it could live, thrive, and reproduce without killing itself in the process. I'm just in awe at the foresight that Evolution has, if only I could be so crafty, creative, cunning, prophetic, and intelligent. Evolution sounds like it is a godsend, because it knows how to do everything that needs to be done and knows exactly when it needs to be done. I sure would like to have its resume. Let's all raise a salute to Mr. and Mrs. Evolution, the father and mother of all life on this planet. If only you and I could be so perfect and good; but, we're only human after all. Evolution is a god.


Over time, I have noticed that many scientists ascribe prescient cognitive powers to Evolution treating it as if it is intelligent and alive. They often talk about Evolution using the exact same terms that creationists use with God -- Evolution did this; Evolution accomplished that; Evolution designed a separate pathway; Evolution created all life on this planet; Evolution took awhile to do all of this but he got the job done in the end; Evolution is true and supreme. I came to realize that for many atheists, Evolution is their god, and they actually personify it and ascribe to it god-like magical powers. Anywhere that they use the word Evolution, you can safely substitute the word God, and their sentences will still make sense. In fact, there are times when their sentences will actually make a lot more sense, if you simply substitute the word "God" for the word "evolution". Try it sometime. You'll be amazed.

You clearly don't understand evolution, or nature for that matter.

Those who are into Intelligent Design think that it makes sense that God simply spoke, and things happened, or that he snaps his fingers and wala, things happen. Its not as you portray Evolution at all, nor is it as simple as God snapping his fingers. You talk about Evolution as if it has consciousness or as if science is ascribing consciousness to it. Evolution is process. Evolution is Nature in Action. Evolution is nature going step by step from the simple to the increasingly complex

The implication of this is that Nature/Evolution is NOT intelligent in the sense of conscious beings. And also, it does NOT imply that somehow God can just snap his fingers, and the elements simply obey as some people portray. Rather, nature is only intelligent because of its nature as being set up to respond to those commands. In other words, it is only intelligent the same way a computer can be artificially intelligent. An artificially-intelligent program can learn on its own and retain that knowledge by storing it and referring to it, and making that knowledge a part of its programming. Nature is set up in a similar way. The computer can only respond to those commands because of the type of programming it has received. Things like DNA and cell replication show precisely what kinds of "programs" are run in nature, that have a sort of "artificial intelligence" to them.

Evolution isn't hard to understand. Because over long periods of time, programs in processes that are artificially intelligent in a manner of speaking run in such a way that parts self assemble from pure "junk" until they come together with something useful for what they were set in motion to accomplish.

And by junk, I mean that literally. Our cells and the so-called organelles and structures in them are pure accumulated junk over time that work like machinery. Our Mitochondria are re-purposed bacteria that are related to Typhus (yes, they sequenced the mitochondrial genome, and they are actually related to other types of bacteria). They originally were invaders to the cell, but became symbionts, until finally their reproduction got in sync with the rest of the cell, and they became a part of the machinery. Our cell nuclei came originally from an invading DNA virus into a cell. Cloroplasts are simply algal cells that invaded plant cells. All of these parts are pure junk that accumulated together until it was something useful. This is not the mark of design. This is the mark of bottom-up self assemblage.

This doesn't mean that there isn't Design. It just means that there is an automatic-ness to nature where lots of processes are self-intelligent enough to carry out basic complex processes, and God doesn't have to be involved all the time in the nitty gritty of these basic process, because he created them to be smart enough in the first place to take care of those details.