Creation scientists

[Amo]

Curious that you would post something from Reasons.org since they are definitely promoters of the Big Bang theory of creation.  Thus, Reasons hold to the evolution of the universe from its initiation with the Big Bang until now.  Reasons, however, have their own proposals for the progression for biological life, different from that of the usual evolutionary theories, but not in accordance with the YEC brand. They definitely do present God of the Bible as the author of all things but clearly different than the YEC.

YEC's don't agree about everything either. The article suggests natural processes of evolution alone, are not likely to have to have brought us where we are now, let alone even capable of starting an evolutionary process. Which YEC"s of course agree with.

[4WD]

YEC's don't agree about everything either. The article suggests natural processes of evolution alone, are not likely to have to have brought us where we are now, let alone even capable of starting an evolutionary process. Which YEC"s of course agree with.

So what?  Evolutionists do not agree about everything either. And YECs certainly do not agree with Reasons theory on natural history, biological or otherwise.  I suggest you delve a little more deeply into Reasons theories.  It might do you some good.

[The Barbarian]

https://crev.info/2020/01/how-body-organs-evolved-not/

Quoted article below from link above.

For example, to achieve sexually-reproductive life by evolution, mitosis must evolve into meiosis. As any freshman biology class will tell you, a chasm exists between mitosis and meiosis (see illustration). Sexual reproduction requires meiosis that produces haploid cells containing half the normal number of chromosomes, which is 23 in humans. Evolutionists propose that, after eons of time, mutations in the genes that controlled mitosis evolved mitosis into meiosis. The fact is the evolution of meiosis from mitosis is untenable, like the "What good is half-of-a-wing?" problem. Until the evolution from mitosis to meiosis is complete, life cannot reproduce sexually.

This depends on the notion that sexual reproduction must have started with eukaryotes and all the bells and whistles.   But it didn't.   Still doesn't.   Bacteria conjugate and sexually reproduce.      Centrioles, spindles, and the like are relatively new features in sexual reproduction.    And it seems more likely that mitosis (2n) evolved from meiosis (1n).

This isn't graduate-level genetics.   C'mon.

[The Barbarian]

Oh, and it's very true that mammals existed before dinosaurs.   

Our forelimbs are a big part of what makes mammals special, and in a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists have discovered that our early relatives started evolving diverse forelimbs 270 million years ago -- a good 30 million years before the earliest dinosaurs existed.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190318151719.htm

[Amo]

So what?  Evolutionists do not agree about everything either. And YECs certainly do not agree with Reasons theory on natural history, biological or otherwise.  I suggest you delve a little more deeply into Reasons theories.  It might do you some good.

So what? So what? I'll quote what I want for what ever reason I want. To make what ever point I want. I suggest you take the holy scriptures to mean what they simply say more than you do. It would do you some good.

[Amo]

This depends on the notion that sexual reproduction must have started with eukaryotes and all the bells and whistles.   But it didn't.   Still doesn't.   Bacteria conjugate and sexually reproduce.      Centrioles, spindles, and the like are relatively new features in sexual reproduction.    And it seems more likely that mitosis (2n) evolved from meiosis (1n).

This isn't graduate-level genetics.   C'mon.

Tell him that, not me.

https://creation.com/dr-jerry-bergman

Quotes below from link above.

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology

Biography

Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College in Archbold OH for over 25 years. He has 9 degrees, including 7 graduate (= 'post-graduate' in some non-US systems) degrees. Dr Bergman is a graduate of Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, The University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 800 publications in 12 languages and 20 books and monographs. He has also taught at the Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in the department of experimental pathology, and he also taught 6 years at the University of Toledo, and 7 years at Bowling Green State University.

Among his books is a monograph on peer evaluation published by the College Student Journal Press, a Fastback on the creation-evolution controversy published by Phi Delta Kappa, a book on vestigial organs with Dr George Howe ('Vestigial Organs' are Fully Functional), a book on psychology and religious cults, a book on religious discrimination published by Onesimus Press, and a book on mental health published by Claudius Verlag in München. He has also published a college textbook on evaluation (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co.), and has contributed to dozens of other textbooks. He was also a consultant for over 20 science text books, mostly biology and biochemistry.

Dr Bergman has presented over one hundred scientific papers at professional and community meetings in the United States, Canada, and Europe. To discuss his research, he has been a featured speaker on many college campuses throughout the United States and Europe, and is a frequent guest on radio and television programs. His research has made the front page in newspapers throughout the country, has been featured by the Paul Harvey Show several times, and has been discussed by David Brinkley, Chuck Colson, and other nationally known commentators on national television.

His other work experience includes over ten years experience at various Mental Health/Psychology clinics as a licensed professional clinical counselor and three years full time corrections research for a large county circuit court in Michigan and inside the walls of Jackson Prison (SPSM), the largest walled prison in the world. He has also served as a consultant for CBS News, ABC News, Reader's Digest, Amnesty International, several government agencies and for two Nobel Prize winners, including the inventor of the transistor. In the past decade he has consulted or has testified as an expert witness or consultant in almost one-hundred court cases. A Fellow of the American Scientific Association, member of The National Association for the Advancement of Science, and many other professional associations, he is listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the Midwest and in Who's Who in Science and Religion.

Education

M.S.O.H. (Master of Science in Occupational Health), Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, 2004.

M.P.H. M.P.H. (Master of Science in Public Health), Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio), 2001.

M.S.B.S. (Master of Science in Biomedical Science), Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, 1999.

Ph.D. in human biology, Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California, 1992.

M.A. in social psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, 1986.

Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1976.

M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1971.

B.S., Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1970. Major area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology.

A.A. in Biology and Behavioral Science, Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 1967.

Honors/awards/certifications

Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation, 1983

Who's Who in America

MENSA

Ohio certification to teach both elementary and high school levels

Professional memberships

Dr Bergman is or was active in the following organizations:

National Association for Gifted Children

American Educational Research Association

National Council on Measurement in Education

American Sociological Association

American Psychological Association

Ohio Psychological Association

Association for the Scientific Study of Religion

American Association of Suicidology

Institute of Religion and Health

American Society of Corrections

The Professional Organizations that Dr Bergman is now a member of and/or involved in, include:

Ohio Science Teachers Association.

American Biology Teachers Association.

The American Scientific Affiliation.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The American Association for the History of Science

American Chemical Society

American Institute of Biological Sciences.

Ohio Academy of Science

American Institute of Chemists

New York Academy of Sciences

The New York Museum of Natural History

Other professional memberships

Society for the Scientific Study of Male Psychology and Physiology, President and Founder

Radio, video tapes, and television shows

Dr Bergman has appeared on approximately 200 radio shows and 14 television shows for various Public Television and other stations. His research has been featured several times on the Paul Harvey Show, and once by David Brinkley.

Articles

His articles on creation include:

The central role of Darwinism in the Holocaust

New fossil proves turtle evolution ... or does it?

Academia and the press as the bad guys—review of Spectacle: The astonishing life of Ota Benga by Pamela Newkirk

Darwinists still trying to refute Behe and still failing—review of Darwin Devolves: The new science about DNA that challenges evolution by Michael Behe

Common examples of 'one gene, one trait' exposed

Fingernails and toenails—useless evolutionary relics or an important part of design?

A book about human errors that don't exist—review of Human Errors: A panorama of our glitches, from pointless bones to broken genes by Nathan H. Lents

A history of the United Methodist Church's opposition to creationism and intelligent design

Darwin's Point

Developmental gene regulatory networks—an insurmountable impediment to evolution

Neutral Model, genetic drift and the Third Way—a synopsis of the self-inflicted demise of the evolutionary paradigm

Is the male reproductive system poorly designed?

The 'common sense' argument for evolution

Arthur I. Brown: An early creation leader

Dino-bird theory—a flight of fancy

Darwin's corrosive influence on literature and society as a whole. A review of Apostate—The Men Who Destroyed the Christian West by Kevin Swanson

Marcel-Paul Schützenberger—French Darwin doubter

Feathers—an evolutionary enigma

C. Everett Koop—Christian and Darwin doubter

James Tour—leading scientist and Darwin skeptic

Incomplete lineage sorting and other 'rogue' data fell the tree of life

The left recurrent laryngeal nerve design in mammals is not poor design

The sea horse

Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?

The tragic toll of toxic teaching: A review of Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution by Karl W. Giberson

Is the human genome nearly identical to chimpanzee?—a reassessment of the literature

Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human–chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data

The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence

The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data

Darwin is the universal acid that affects everything

From skepticism to faith in Christ: a Nobel Laureate's journey

Anders Breivik—Social Darwinism leads to mass murder

Using facial angle to prove evolution and the human race hierarchy

John C. Eccles, Nobel laureate and Darwin doubter

Robert A. Millikan, physics Noble laureate and Darwin doubter

Chapter from In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

Are wisdom teeth (third molars) vestiges of human evolution?

The Dodo Bird ... An example of survival of the fittest

Who invented it first?

Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?

Ancon sheep: just another loss mutation

The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism

Understanding Poisons from a Creationist Perspective

Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust

H.G. Wells: Darwin's disciple and eugenicist extraordinaire

The church preaches eugenics: a history of church support for Darwinism and eugenics: review of Preaching Genetics:

Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement by Christine Rosen

The Darwinian foundation of communism

The miracle of tears

Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis

Creationism and the problem of homosexual behavior

Teaching Creation and Evolution in Public Schools Solid research reveals American beliefs

Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses?

The history of the teaching of human female inferiority in Darwinism

Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea

ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell (CRSQ article posted on True Origins website)

Why Abiogenesis is Impossible (CRSQ article posted on True Origins website)

Ota Benga: the pygmy put on display in a zoo

Is the human male nipple vestigial?

The design of tears: an example of irreducible complexity

Darwin's critical influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism

Is the human pharynx poorly designed?

The flat-earth myth and creationism

Did immune system antibody diversity evolve?

Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist

Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?

Ludwig Wittgenstein: Darwin doubter

I'm sure his credentials are no where near as impressive as your's though Barb, right. What does he know compared to you?

[The Barbarian]

Tell him that, not me.

I'm sure his credentials are no where near as impressive as your's though Barb, right. What does he know compared to you?

It's what he seems to not know that's the problem for him...

Genetics. 2009 Jan; 181(1): 3–12.
The Evolution of Meiosis From Mitosis
Finally, we review the evidence that much of the molecular machinery required for the initial forms of homolog pairing probably existed in proto-eukaryote unicellular forms prior to the evolution of meiosis and therefore could have been readily "recruited" for the new role. Some experimental tests of the hypothesis are proposed.

Notice, this isn't exactly new information.   It's about 13 years old.   Bergman seems to have not been keeping up.   

I do find it interesting that Bergman is parroting the Soviet line on Darwin, blaming him for "ruthless extremes of capitalism" as well as for "the Darwinian foundation of communism", the Holocaust, and pretty much anything else that he could think of.    Consistency isn't one of Jerry's strong points, is it?    I'm surprised he didn't blame Darwin for hailstorms and COVID-19.

[Amo]

It's what he seems to not know that's the problem for him...

Genetics. 2009 Jan; 181(1): 3–12.
The Evolution of Meiosis From Mitosis
Finally, we review the evidence that much of the molecular machinery required for the initial forms of homolog pairing probably existed in proto-eukaryote unicellular forms prior to the evolution of meiosis and therefore could have been readily "recruited" for the new role. Some experimental tests of the hypothesis are proposed.

Notice, this isn't exactly new information.   It's about 13 years old.   Bergman seems to have not been keeping up.   

I do find it interesting that Bergman is parroting the Soviet line on Darwin, blaming him for "ruthless extremes of capitalism" as well as for "the Darwinian foundation of communism", the Holocaust, and pretty much anything else that he could think of.    Consistency isn't one of Jerry's strong points, is it?    I'm surprised he didn't blame Darwin for hailstorms and COVID-19.

Keeping up, that's funny. As though any one individual could possibly keep up with the constant changes, speculations, imaginings, observations, and what have you of "science" related and published information world wide. Much of which is of course proved erroneous over time in ay case. Perhaps this article helps clarify. Or better yet, maybe you could contact Mr. Bergman to specifically address the problem you see.

https://answersresearchjournal.org/evolution/evolution-reproduction/

Quotes from article below from link above, where full article may be viewed. The article is to long to quote in its entirety, I highlighted an area where he addresses the evolution of Meiosis from Mitosis.

The Evolution of Asexual to Sexual Reproduction: The Queen of Evolutionary Problems

by Dr. Jerry Bergman
Published on December 15, 2021

Abstract

The evidence is overwhelming and widely recognized by evolutionists that evolution by small steps cannot bridge the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction.

Introduction

Historically, in Western society, the dominant belief for centuries was the Genesis teaching that the origin of sexual reproduction was a result of creation. After the Darwinian revolution, the origin of sex was explained to be the result of evolution. In short, chance mutations were selected by survival of the fittest, resulting in the evolution of asexual creatures into sexual creatures (Dabhoiwala 2012). Darwinism then "rendered teleology superfluous . . . adaptations are produced by a blind mechanism . . . not the result from conscious design" by God (Ghiselin 1974, 24). Thus, when evolution replaced God as the creator of organic life, an evolutionary explanation was sought for all aspects of life including sexual reproduction (Symons 1979, 60). The origin-of-sex problem is widely recognized by evolutionists today, even after 150 years of investigation since Darwin revolutionized the world with his theory. This "masterpiece of nature" is acknowledged as one of the most difficult evolutionary problems, second only to the origin-of-life problem (Trivers 1983). This is the reason why sexual reproduction is called the "queen of evolutionary problems" (Ridley 2001; Smith 2018, xxix).

Furthermore, "no other problem has sowed as much confusion" as have attempts to explain the origin of sexual reproduction (Bell 1982, 19). As Richard Dawkins asked, "Why did sex, that bizarre perversion of straightforward replication, ever arise in the first place? . . . This is an extremely difficult question for the evolutionist to answer" which he admitted he is "going to evade" due to "the difficulty which theorists have with explaining the evolution of sex" (Dawkins 1976, 46). The late Professor Margulis added in the introduction of her book on sex that "becoming sexual is one [topic] which we will try to steer well clear of throughout this book" (Margulis and Sagan 1986, 3).

Darwin's Grand Theory teaches that the evolution from asexual marine organisms to sexual terrestrial amphibians, reptiles, and mammals occurred purely by natural means. This requires bridging the chasm between the two very different reproduction systems (Smith 1978). The three main components of sexual reproduction are 1) the gametes (sperm and ova), 2) the gonads (testes and ovaries), and 3) the copulatory organs (penis and vagina). All these systems must, as a set, be compatible for reproduction to occur. As will be documented, in spite of decades of research by some of the leading biologists, this gap has not even been bridged by "just-so" stories. This is a major problem for evolution because this "queen of evolutionary problems" alone refutes Darwin's Grand Theory (Smith 2018, xxi, 54). Darwin has misled researchers and society alike with his theories, especially those relating to sex (Fisher 1979; Tanner and Zihlman 1976; Tavris 1992, 212–215). Darwin recognized that sex selection was, in many ways, very different from natural selection. He acknowledged that many animals, especially birds, have an intrinsic sense of beauty. Thus, Darwin acknowledged that there exists more to sexual reproduction than just the three systems noted above. Specifically, sexual selection is an evolutionary force driven by what are actually somewhat arbitrary aesthetic choices in mates, rather than by the environmental imperatives that drive natural selection (Prum 2018).

The Ubiquitous Sexual Reproduction Problem

With a few exceptions, such as bdelloid rotifers, most animals and plants can reproduce by some form of sexual behavior. Furthermore, the gonads employed in the animal kingdom for sexual relations, although enormously different, function for one purpose only, to transfer the male seed to fertilize the female egg. Plants use a very different transfer system than mammals, usually requiring wind, water, or insects to accomplish seed transfer. Many prokaryotes also participate in gene transfer. The assumption that asexual reproduction is "simple" is erroneous: "even the simplest bacterial chromonemal sexual process is, from a biochemical point of view, not at all simple" (Margulis and Sagan 1986, 36). The evolution of asexual reproduction has, likewise, stymied evolutionists, but that is the subject of another paper.

Evolutionists are faced with the problem of the evolution of the mechanics of sexual reproduction not only in humans, but in thousands of different life-forms. Plants, worms, birds, reptiles, and mammals all use very different sexual systems. For "any one of them to exist, the mechanics of sex had to be fully in place—all at the same time" (Smith 2018, 165). The extent of the problem for evolutionists is illustrated by the fact that, without sexual plants, herbivores such as cows and sheep could not survive. Likewise, without herbivore animals, such as antelopes, carnivores such as lions and tigers could not survive.

Ridley argues that in many ways asexual reproduction is a superior evolutionary strategy. Only one parent is required, and every one of that parent's genes are passed on to its progeny. By contrast, in sexual reproduction, only half of each parent's genes are passed to the next generation. Furthermore, a mate must be found and mating must occur at very specific times. Yet sexual reproduction persists (Ridley 1993a).

Sex is not just critical for individual life-forms, but for the entire web of life we call the ecosystem. Evolutionary theory postulates that asexual reproduction, after many millions of years, evolved into the scores of sexual reproduction systems existing today. The enormous gap between asexual reproduction and any one of them has not and, as we will show, cannot be bridged by evolution.

Furthermore, the variety of reproductive systems existing even in large classes of reptiles, fish, amphibians, mammals, and especially in insects, is enormous. Furthermore, all male-female organs must be compatible within each species for reproduction to occur. The focus in this paper is on the specific reproductive organ system used in mammals, primarily humans.

Darwin Gave Up Attempting to Answer the Origin-of-Sex Problem

The "Sex Problem" elucidates Darwin's famous challenge, which was: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 225). In describing the evolutionary path that produced sexuality, Darwin's early grappling with the origin-of-sex problem caused him to conclude that asexual life evolved into sexual life. Early in his career, however, Darwin recognized some of the many problems with this view, and grappled with using the hermaphroditism view—the presence of both male and female reproductive organs in one individual—as a possible answer (Ghiselin 1965). In his 1837–1838 notes, when attempting to explain some of the many physical differences between males and females, Darwin wrote,

almost all animals subject to Hermaphroditism,— those organs which perform nearly the same function in both sexes, are never double, only modified, [versions of] those which perform very different [functions], are both present in every shade of perfection.—How comes its nipples though abortive, are so plain in man, and yet no trace of abortive womb, or ovarium,—or testicles in female.—the presence of both testes & ovaries in Hermaphrodite—but not of penis & clitoris, shows to my mind, that both are present in every animal, but unequally developed. (quoted in de Beer 1960, 298–299)

Aside from this early musing, "Darwin never attempted to explain the origin of sex. Why should he bother? Nature was absolutely saturated with sex" (Smith 2018, 169). Darwin likely realized he could not even produce logical speculations that explained the origin of sex. For this reason he almost totally ignored the topic. In his Descent of Man, Darwin covered sexual variation, sexual adaptation, sexual attraction, and sexual selection, but never mentioned how sex might have, or even could have, evolved (Smith 2018, 145). Nonetheless, the insights of Darwin "which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality" (Bell 1982, 19).

The problem for Darwin and his followers was that "Bacterial sexuality is very different from the meiotic sex of protists, fungi, plants, and animals." So different, in fact, that bridging the two has proved impossible, even in theory (Margulis and Sagan 1986, 3). Margulis concluded that sex did not evolve because it was a superior means of reproduction— as most evolutionists claim. Rather, "ultimately males and females are different from each other not because sexual species are better equipped to handle the contingencies of a dynamically changing environment, but because of a series of historical accidents that took place" (Margulis and Sagan 1986, 3).

A Complex Integrated System Required

Sexual reproduction does not involve one or two organs, but numerous organ systems that must all work harmoniously together. This includes the gonads, the female womb and birth canal, the secondary sexual traits (e.g., beard in males, breasts in females), the brain which responds to sexual stimuli, and the genes that produce and regulate the many parts of the entire complex reproductive system. Without all of these required parts, the system will not function and the organism cannot reproduce.

This problem perfectly illustrates Darwin's dilemma, namely the question first posed by St. George Mivart in 1871, "What use is half a wing?" The fact is, half of a bird's pair of wings would be worse than useless because it would greatly interfere with the organism's land travel and waste body resources and nutrients (Smith 2018, 48–50; also Gould 1985). Because of this dilemma, evolutionists almost uniformly ignore the problem of the evolution of sex.

Zimmer and Emlen even admitted in their popular textbook that "Given the functional uniqueness of sexual reproduction at even the most primitive level, what we will see over and over throughout this book is that such an assumed gradual process could not, in actual scientific fact, have happened" (Smith 2018, 81). But, according to evolutionists, it must have happened and required a large number of mutations called "replicator substitutions." Dawkins wrote: "sexual reproduction is a prime example of a complex adaptation for [which] a large number of replicator [genetic] substitutions would be required" (1982, 106).

Mitosis Evolves into Meiosis

Sexual reproduction requires meiosis, which produces haploid cells containing half the normal number of chromosomes for the organism. In humans, this means a haploid cell has 23 of the normally 46 chromosomes. Evolutionists propose that after eons of genetic mutations, mitosis evolved into meiosis (Smith 2018). This is problematic because major differences exist between meiosis and mitosis (Wilkins and Holliday 2009). The evolution of meiosis from mitosis is untenable for reasons similar to the "half-of-a-wing" dilemma. In short, mitosis is closer to a glorified copy machine while, in contrast, meiosis is a functional creator that produces the potential for the enormous variety seen everywhere in most all life-forms existing today (Smith 2018, 94). Furthermore, for meiosis to exist, transposition, imprinting, epigenetics, genetic crossing over, the topoisomerase mechanism, and numerous other complex systems must have also evolved, and been available for use simultaneously. However, none of these have been explained by evolution, even by "just-so" stories.

Evolution from External to Internal Fertilization

.....................................................................

Amniotic Evolution

......................................................................

Estrus Cycles Harmony Required

........................................................................

Sexual Dimorphism

.........................................................................

Sperm-Egg Compatibility

.........................................................................

The Problem of Gender Evolution

...........................................................................

Sexual Organ Design Compatibility

...........................................................................

Male Human Reproductive Organs and Their Function

............................................................................

Female Human Reproductive Organs and Their Function

..............................................................................

The "Evolution" of the "Sexual Reproduction Problem" Refutes Evolution

...............................................................................

Conclusions

Darwinists are no closer to solving the origin-of-sex problem today than they were in Darwin's day. The advantages of sexual reproduction are well-known, and include the production of enormous genetic variety compared to asexual reproduction. The most popular theory for the origin of sex as of this writing is the "Red Queen theory", which explains that sex evolved to constantly adapt to, and thus survive the "ever-evolving" human pathogens (Ridley 1993b). The Red Queen analogy is from Lewis Carroll's novel Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. As she has to run just to stay in the same place, likewise evolution has to keep moving just to maintain the ability to reproduce.

Theory aside, sexual reproduction is almost universal in the higher plant and animal world, even if evolution cannot explain it in Darwinian terms. This serious gap in evolution was largely ignored by Darwin, and by most evolutionists today, because they have not been able to propose even plausible "just-so" stories to explain the evolution of sex. Like many difficult evolutionary questions, the best strategy is to ignore the entire problem, which is what evolutionists have done. All life, evolutionists teach, was asexual for eons. The common attempt is to state that sexual life evolved from asexual life, but sex will not work until two complex systems in the two sexes are compatible. The problem of how reproduction occurred before both systems were evolved concurrently has never been answered.

The peer-reviewed literature effectively documents the fact that the evolution of sexual reproduction is a major unsolved, and unsolvable, problem for evolution. The former editor of Nature, John Maddox, writing about the question of when and how sexual reproduction evolved, stated that "Despite decades of speculation, we do not know" how sexual reproduction evolved (Maddox 1998, 252). This classic study of the origins of sex concluded, "how or why sex [evolved] is a deep mystery" (Judson 2002). As Professor van Rossum has concluded, "a salient characteristic of living beings, sexual reproduction, defies Darwinism, and [is] not based on an improbability, but on an impossibility of explanation" (van Rossum 2014, back cover).The fact is, evolutionists admit that they are perplexed about the whole question of sex (Eckholm 1986, Section C, 1).

[The Barbarian]

That's not scientific method.  Do you know what scientific method is?   The first person to use anything like it was Democritus of Abdera, and the first person to codify it into a formal procedure was  Ibn al-Haytham.   From him, Roger Bacon brought it to Europe.

I think you missed my point.

The point is, you have no idea about it.

[Amo]

That's not scientific method.  Do you know what scientific method is?   The first person to use anything like it was Democritus of Abdera, and the first person to codify it into a formal procedure was  Ibn al-Haytham.   From him, Roger Bacon brought it to Europe.

The point is, you have no idea about it.

Why are you responding to a post almost 4 years old, that has nothing to do with what we have just been discussing? You need to be careful, it may be that people who hang around with and or defend Joe Biden, begin to display symptoms of the Biden syndrome. I'd look into that.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XcxKTXmWFY

Ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Dinosaur leg with scales and tissue wonderfully preserved near it seems to the surface when discovered, for 66 million years. Flood conditions of course being the cause, with the leg found among many fish. Funny how the ever evolving theory of evolution continues to evolve ever closer to the biblical scenario of the global flood, while denying the same, because it just cannot go there. Now of course it is becoming routine apparently to accept the preservation of scales, muscle, and soft tissue for 66 to hundreds of millions of years. And why must this now be accepted as apparently not only possible, but increasingly common? Because these scientists simply will not go where any evidence supporting the biblical flood scenario leads. Therefore are they ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. So be it.

[Alan]

If there was a global flood, scientists would be researching it. Why wouldn't they? fact is, there were many catastrophic floods around the globe, but at different points of time. The various cultures have recording such, and recorded how their people survived.  Even more interesting are the places that do not have a flood account, yet have a history of their people that is older than biblical writings. One such place is Japan, who felt their race was superior because they were spared the atrocities of floods.

[Amo]

If there was a global flood, scientists would be researching it. Why wouldn't they? fact is, there were many catastrophic floods around the globe, but at different points of time. The various cultures have recording such, and recorded how their people survived.  Even more interesting are the places that do not have a flood account, yet have a history of their people that is older than biblical writings. One such place is Japan, who felt their race was superior because they were spared the atrocities of floods.

https://curiosmos.com/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-sumberged-yonaguni-monument/

[Amo]

https://www.phoenixvoyage.org/ancient-earth-blog/megalithic-enigmas-of-japan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E9218vCn70

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYH5tlAglxE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL880Sa08So

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtJlY4ImVhM

Biblical history of life on earth.

[Amo]

https://thecreationclub.com/ancient-drowned-coastal-city-ruins/

Article below from link above.

ANCIENT, DROWNED COASTAL CITY RUINS

Some of the world's greatest mysteries are the remains of cities, temples, and other manmade structures all over the world on the earth's continental shelves below the surface of the oceans. A few are found in sites only tens of feet below the ocean surface. Others are found in places now buried a few hundred feet deep.

The remains have been subjected to ocean currents, as well as chemical and physical erosion for thousands of years. Part of the mystery is to puzzle over why there are any remains of man-made structures at all.

The Egyptian Coast

Divers have discovered the ruins of manmade constructions off the coast of Alexandria, Egypt, in the Mediterranean Sea. They have documented remains of columns and walls that were made of huge, precisely-cut granite blocks, along with sphinxes and other statues.

In an area about three miles northeast of Alexandria in deeper water, the remains of hundreds of feet of walls can be found. The walls are made of limestone blocks with each block measuring 8 feet x 8 feet x 4 feet.

More recently, in another area off the coast of Egypt, dramatic discoveries of huge statues of gods, goddesses, and rulers have been uncovered from thick layers of mud. Remains of ships, anchors, and numerous other artifacts were also discovered. Plans are underway to build a museum that will allow some of the underwater remains to be viewed.

Coasts Around the World

Off the coast of northeastern India are the remains of an underwater city, thought by some to be the ancient mystical city of Dwarka. Other remains of underwater manmade structures and cities have been discovered off the coasts of

*Greece,
*Yonaguni Island near Okinawa, Japan,
*Malta,
*and other places.

Plato mentioned a city known as Atlantis that disappeared beneath ocean waters.

North American Coast

Another recent discovery of an underwater manmade site off the coast of Manasota, Florida, supports the idea that sea levels have risen dramatically during the past few thousand years.

A diver discovered what appeared to be some kind of manmade structure twenty-one feet below sea level and reported it to a group of Underwater Archeology scientists. The group explored the site and found human bones, textiles, and sharpened wood stakes in what seemed to be an old peat-bottom pond.

Early humans from Florida were known to bury their dead in such ponds. The archeologists concluded that the site was at one time a burial ground for a group of early Native Americans, but at a time when the burial ground and the surrounding land were above sea level. They concluded that the pond was initially about nine feet above sea level, and the sea level was thirty feet lower than it is today.

Explanations of What Happened to Drown These Places

The explanations for why these sites were covered by oceans are quite varied. Earthquakes and tsunamis are the most frequently suggested reasons. Some scientists even accept the more bizarre ideas that they were built by aliens from space. But, quite likely, archeologists may be overlooking the most logical explanation of all.

A Creationist Model

After the flood, the ocean waters would have been warmed by being exposed to hot magma released from tectonic breaks in the crust, as well as from numerous volcanic eruptions in the ocean. At the same time, the volcanic ash in the air would have caused the earth to cool.

The unique combination of warm ocean waters and cooler summers would have resulted in the Ice Age that lasted about 500 to 800 years. The areas near the equator would have received an abundance of rain, while the areas beyond the temperate zones would have received huge amounts of snow. As massive ice packs gradually built up on land, the sea level would have gradually become lower, exposing large areas of the Continental Shelf.

The descendants of the flood survivors lived in a common area known as Babel for a period of time. During this time, they had great success in restoring the science and technologies of the pre-flood civilization.

Then God intervened, and they began to move to other places around the world. They often built structures next to the ocean during the Ice Age. The earliest civilizations appeared to spring up at almost the same time. Using the knowledge they were able to recover from the pre-flood civilization, they built their cities and other structures.

Common Cultural Markers

The underwater remains, found all over the world, contain similarities that indicate a common origin at one time.

*Typically, the remains include strong flat, level foundations made from gigantic cut stones.
*Steps are frequently seen.
*The remains of the underwater buildings show similarities to each other and to nearby structures still found on the land.
*The works made by artists indicate an advanced knowledge of how to work with granite and other hard stone, as found in beautiful statues and other carvings.
*In some places, written texts are recorded on blocks of stone or metal.
As the ocean level gradually began to rise near the end of the Ice Age, melting ice returned water to the oceans.

Conclusion

In your opinion, which version best explains the widespread remains of well-engineered underwater cities and other structures?

*The people who lived before the Flood lived in a technologically-advanced world.  Most of these people were destroyed by means of a worldwide flood, but the survivors of the Flood and their descendants were able to recover and reinvent some of the technologies. They congregated at Babel for a while until God scattered them around the world. Many cities, temples, and other structures were constructed on the Continental Shelf during the ice age when the sea level was temporarily lowered and then re-raised.
*OR,
*The first humans evolved over millions of years from ape-like animals and were known as cave men.  Then cave men continued to evolve until intelligent humans emerged. Early, intelligent men built cities, temples, and other structures near the oceans. These structures sank below the oceans during earthquakes and other tectonic events.

[Rella]

https://thecreationclub.com/ancient-drowned-coastal-city-ruins/

OK, I'll play simply because I am not a 50 million year old life believer but am certain thigs came into being before Adam walked the garden.

You say

In your opinion, which version best explains the widespread remains of well-engineered underwater cities and other structures?

*The people who lived before the Flood lived in a technologically-advanced world.  Most of these people were destroyed by means of a worldwide flood, but the survivors of the Flood and their descendants were able to recover and reinvent some of the technologies. They congregated at Babel for a while until God scattered them around the world. Many cities, temples, and other structures were constructed on the Continental Shelf during the ice age when the sea level was temporarily lowered and then re-raised.
*OR,
*The first humans evolved over millions of years from ape-like animals and were known as cave men.  Then cave men continued to evolve until intelligent humans emerged. Early, intelligent men built cities, temples, and other structures near the oceans. These structures sank below the oceans during earthquakes and other tectonic events.

I do opt for your first question.... but I do not opt for the idea that within the past 6000 to 7000 years that there was such great techology that the flood wiped it out and has truly took all that time since the flood to now for us to have and develope the technology we have now.

If On day 1 of creation to the flood... if it fell into one of these time spans A reasonable estimate of the time from creation to the flood can be calculated. A minimum time would use the Samaritan text, a ten year "converting ages to years" deduction, and a 1.44% calendar reduction. This gives 1278 years. A maximum time would use the Septuagint text and a ten year "converting ages to years" increase. This gives 2252 years. A best guess estimate would use the Masoretic text, a five year "converting ages to years" increase, and a five year calendar decrease. This gives 1656 years. This best guess estimate is about halfway between the minimum and maximum time periods.
http://amunrud.com/noah/noahyears.html

If it took only a scant 2000 years or less to come from multiply and fill the earth to "The people who lived before the Flood lived in a technologically-advanced world.

Then why would it have taken until the last century or so for mankind to advance to the point we are today.

NO... I have no answer but I do know that the reported timeline within Genesis could well be off.

And that is something you cannot prove one way or the other except by the so called experts who study that stuff and they come down all over the place.

[Amo]

Actually, I didn't say anything, I quoted an article. Second, the bible is truth! Third, the so called experts of this world are equivilant to less than the brain or intellect of a gnat, compared to God and the rest of His creation who are privy to His presence and all of creation. Not the box we are tapped within. The following instruction is the duty of all who profess Christ Jesus as Lord.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Rom 12:1  I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Who will keep a commandment, they do not even believe is true?

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

An ever growing number of believers today, disregard or disbelieve ever increasing amounts of Holy scripture. They believe they can do such with impunity and or little effect, but the concurrent ever increasing moral depravity of the world all around them screams aloud to the opposite effect. What authority can truly be displayed by those who themselves increasingly ignore the authority and or authenticity of that which they themselves claim to be the ultimate authority? To the contrary, the ever increasing immorality and chaos we see in the world is in direct proportion to the ever increasing doubt cast upon the authority and authenticity of Holy scripture, by those who themselves profess to be the subjects of the same. Nevertheless, we will either be conformed by and to the word of God, or by and to the teachings of this world. In the end, there will be no in between. God will personally divide and separate His own from the rest when He returns. The dividing line will be pretty basic. Were we conformed to God's word, or to this world.

Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

The question is, are the concepts of deep time and evolution of this world, or of God's word which is not of this world? This is a very important question for everyone to answer for themselves. May God give us all the grace and wisdom to decide correctly, in accordance to the testimony of His word. 

[4WD]

The question is, are the concepts of deep time and evolution of this world, or of God's word which is not of this world? This is a very important question for everyone to answer for themselves.

And here we see the real problem.  First , you have decided for yourself that the two concepts you list are incompatible,  You even think you have the intellectual wherewithall to address that question.  You don't.  And neither do I nor, for all I can tell, do any others who post here.  The best any of us have is to study the work of others and decide for ourselves what is the truth or at least closet to the truth. Unfortunately you are much like the democrats and the Catholics that you seem to deplore and decide that any who would disagree with you must be declared wrong, disparaged and silenced.

[Amo]

And here we see the real problem.  First , you have decided for yourself that the two concepts you list are incompatible,  You even think you have the intellectual wherewithall to address that question.  You don't.  And neither do I nor, for all I can tell, do any others who post here.  The best any of us have is to study the work of others and decide for ourselves what is the truth or at least closet to the truth. Unfortunately you are much like the democrats and the Catholics that you seem to deplore and decide that any who would disagree with you must be declared wrong, disparaged and silenced.

To the contrary, you are the lefty here, declaring things about me I have never said or believe. Of course I do believe I am right, which would make those in disagreement wrong. As it is and can be no other way when one thinks they are or are right. I do not believe in silencing anyone though, and have written extensively on these boards in defense of freedom of speech, and attacked censorship. Which you know, if you actually read my posts at all. So why would you accuse me of the opposite? When Have I ever told you or anyone they should have no right to defend their positions? I have not. I simply believe and declare certain positions to be false, and against the testimony of scripture. Nevertheless, God Himself allows for us all to decide and preach what we will. Who is any man to deny such to another? Why make false accusations? Such should not be necessary for defending the truth. 

[4WD]

You all to often suggest, either directly through quoting selected passages of scripture, that anyone who disagrees with you is to be condemned.  Not much different than not having the right to defend their positions.

[Amo]

You all to often suggest, either directly through quoting selected passages of scripture, that anyone who disagrees with you is to be condemned.  Not much different than not having the right to defend their positions.

If scripture says it, it is true, pay attention. If I am just saying it, my words will vanish before long, just like we all will before or until that blessed day. Blessed for the saved in any case.

[Rella]

If scripture says it, it is true, pay attention. If I am just saying it, my words will vanish before long, just like we all will before or until that blessed day. Blessed for the saved in any case.

A little devils advocate here....

The scripture Genesis 1 vs 1 says ( depending on your preferred translation ) (I am using the KJV simply because all know it and it will be less confusing)

Gen 1:1 KJV

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Amo,

When was the beginning?

Does scripture actually state a definitive timeline we can know?

[Amo]

A little devils advocate here....

The scripture Genesis 1 vs 1 says ( depending on your preferred translation ) (I am using the KJV simply because all know it and it will be less confusing)

Gen 1:1 KJV

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Amo,

When was the beginning?

Does scripture actually state a definitive timeline we can know?

None that I know of. Apart from genealogies, from which a good estimate at least, may be made back to Adam in any case.

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zNzwkB6BbE

A video addressing some issues regarding Creation scientists, and accuracy of detail. Which is obviously present among all "sciences". No avoiding the human element, and all the problems associated with the same.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1YcK1ug4bs

More interesting work done by Mark Armitage's group.

[Amo]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionist_censorship

Evolutionist censorship

Evolutionist censorship refers to the practice of evolutionists attempting to censor information that might tend to refute their pet theory or that does not conform to their worldview.

Examples include:

Academic journals refusing to publish papers from Creation scientists.
Refusing to release raw data from publicly funded research.[1]
Liberal professors not allowing students to question the integrity of the Theory of Evolution.
Attempting to cover-up known fraudulent claims and hoaxes.
Abusing the legal system to prevent the side-by-side presentation of competing theories by teachers.[2]

Atheists have also complained about this censorship, claiming that challenging the theory of evolution from a scientific perspective associates a person with the Religious Right, a key target of left-wing professors.[3]

Owing to the liberal nature of the scientific and educational establishments, such censorship is commonplace in public schools and universities. A growing number of creation scientists and conservative educators are fighting this situation, however.

[Amo]

https://www.discovercreation.org/blog/2022/01/13/bias-and-censorship-within-science/

BIAS AND CENSORSHIP WITHIN SCIENCE!!

These are fascinating sections that incorporates numerous secular scientists' own words on the problems with communicating the problems with modern evolutionary theories.
I have copied a large section here, because I want you to read it! I thought it was so telling to hear it from the secular experts:

"The concealment of funding

Lynn Margulis saw that government funding for evolutionary research comes in a disjointed manner from various distinctly separate government agencies and departments, rather than from a coherent single entity. So she, together with other evolutionists, wrote a letter to the National Science Foundation [NSF] urging it to set up a single entity, especially for funding evolution research.

"So we talked about ways of putting pressure on the National Science Foundation to set up an evolution section. ... . This would lead to reduction of redundancy and save money for the funding agencies. ... . Anyway, I deduced that the NSF scientist-bureaucrats were conflicted about our letter. The woman [representative from the NSF] assigned to answer us wrote to say there were so many American citizens opposed to evolution that if the NSF put chemistry, geology, etc. into a single evolution division, it would be like sticking out our heads to be chopped off. Such a proposal, no matter its intellectual validity, would surely not fly! She said the NSF thought it would strengthen evolution science by avoidance of the word 'evolution' and not by centralizing research activities" (Lynn Margulis, pp. 263–264).

This shows how a centralized government can relabel things and partition a large funding stream in various confusing ways, so as to intentionally obscure where taxpayer money is going—and intentionally get around the will of the people. Evolutionists use this maneuver, and Mazur reports no objection to it. Evolutionists feel justified in intentionally withholding key information from the public. This is consistent with their belief system that morals are merely products of evolution.

Censorship

Mazur calls attention to the existing censorship against non-Darwinian ideas. She opposes that censorship, and rightly so. Creationists experience far heavier censorship against their ideas. Yet her explanations for the censorship are nearly identical to what creationists say.

"The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry. ... . At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolution. Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middlebrow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers" (Mazur, p. ix).

"The mainstream media has failed to cover the non-centrality of the gene story to any extent. ... this has to do largely with Darwin-based industry advertising, editors not doing their homework and others just trying to hold on to their jobs" (Mazur, p. 104).

"The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if that's what most biologists say it's about and textbooks repeat it" (Mazur, p. 105).

"The consensus of the evolution pack [i.e. the science blogs] still seems to be that if an idea doesn't fit in with Darwinism and neo-Darwinism—keep it out" (Mazur, p. viii).

"Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory" (Stuart Newman, p. 104).

"One reason that so little progress has been made in this area is that perfectly valid scientific concepts that employ nonadaptive evolutionary mechanisms are rarely considered because of the hegemony of the neo-Darwinian framework" (Stuart Newman, p. 131).

Lynn Margulis reveals how the established worldview (evolution) enforces unity within its ranks:

"[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of "truth"— scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one's teachers or social leaders" (Lynn Margulis, p. 275).

Self-censorship

Disinterest by the mainstream media is one thing, but Mazur is especially alarmed with the self-censorship by evolutionary leaders themselves. Why are they keeping the American public in the dark? She asks why have the two major evolution conferences of the year "been hosted outside the United States"? Why in foreign languages? She is alarmed "The English-speaking world may not be getting the message" (p. 217). Why are evolutionary leaders not getting the message out? She repeatedly returns to this puzzle.

"I asked [Eugenie Scott, from the National Center for Science Education—the NCSE] what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting? She responded that people confuse self-organization with intelligent design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive" (Mazur, p. 101).

More precisely, the NCSE "does not recommend textbooks for schools if those texts include a discussion of self-organization" (p. 254).

Eugenie Scott's statement is nonsense. No matter what the new evolutionary theories may be, no-one will confuse those with intelligent design. She's trying to blame her opponents for something within the evolutionist camp. I'll explain her mischief later.

Mazur then asks Stuart Newman: "To what do you attribute the reluctance to distribute literature about self-organization by organizations like the National Center for Science Education?" (p. 131). He gets a little closer to the truth.

"I think there is a challenge that self-organization and plasticity in general presents to Darwinian theory ... . To my mind, self-organization does represent a challenge to the Darwinian, i.e. the modern synthesis and the perceived understanding of evolutionary theory. ... [P]eople are concerned that if they open up the door to non-Darwinian mechanisms, then they're going to allow creationists to slip through the door as well [emphasis added]" (Stuart Newman, pp. 131–132).

Evolutionists are again blaming creationists as a factor that keeps evolutionists silent.

"I think that abandoning Darwinism (or explicitly relegating it where it belongs, in the refinement and tuning of existing forms) sounds anti-scientific. They [the many contributors to non-Darwinian evolutionary theories] fear that the tenants of intelligent design and the creationists (people I hate as much as they do) will rejoice and quote them as being on their side. They really fear that, so they are prudent, some in good faith, some for calculated fear of being cast out of the scientific community" (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 317).

Mazur writes, "This is a big debate, which the media is not covering. It's reached a crescendo and a lot of people are saying there's a sea change happening" (p. 252). Meanwhile, at nearly the same time, the National Academy of Sciences published its book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, as a denunciation of intelligent design and a defense of teaching only evolution in the public schools.3 In other words, the NAS book omitted the crescendo of controversy and painted a false picture of unity about evolutionary theory and origins. Mazur pans it as "a very general book" and wryly asks Niles Eldredge about its 'simplicity'. He responds:

"No. I mean look, when you're fighting school boards who want to adopt Intelligent Design, you've got to write in very basic terms. It is a political problem. And there's always a problem, as you know ... in communicating science to the public and being clear about it [Mazur's ellipsis]" (Niles Eldredge, p. 329).

Eldredge adopts the usual justification: when dealing with the public, simplification is necessary— so long as the simplification favours evolution. If the simplification were to dis-favour evolution, evolutionists would soon discover their tongues and loudly denounce it.

(Note: It would be helpful if evolutionists dealt with origins in the same way they wanted their opponents to deal with it. Habitual 'simplification' in one's own favour can be a form of dishonesty.)

Mazur objects that the NAS book didn't include any 'additional ways' to consider, such as self-assembly and self-organization. So Eldredge answers:

"No, because it's all regarded as speculative and on the forefront and stuff ... . What they're trying to do [in the NAS book] is say where we are now, where we're comfortable, where we can actually say that this is the way people really do think for the most part" (Niles Eldredge, pp. 329–330).

Eldredge is comfortable omitting the new evolutionary explanations, because those are 'speculative'. But the problems aren't speculative; they're rock solid scientifically, and Eldredge/Mazur did not object to omitting those from the NAS book.

The self-censorship can now be explained. The new evolutionary mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization arise from the evolutionists' attempts to answer overwhelming problems that are scientifically rock-hard and straightforward to describe. But the evolutionary 'answers' are flakey, fluff, undemonstrated, and untestable—not scientific.

Silence is the strongest weapon. The disregard for science's ethical principles is widespread.

That explains why evolutionists prefer venues where evolution is taken as 'fact'—say, at their by-invitation-only conferences. That explains why evolutionists avoid 'self-organization' for the general public, such as the NAS book. That explains why Eugenie Scott and the NCSE actively oppose including 'self-organization' in school textbooks. The NCSE is America's leading anti-creation organization, and they don't want ugly questions rising, such as: "What is the evidence for self-organization?" Because the answer would be: "The evidence for 'self-organization' is the overwhelming problems faced by evolutionary theory, taken together with the 'fact' of evolution?" This won't look pretty in classrooms.

"Silence is the strongest weapon. The disregard for science's ethical principles is widespread" (Lima-de-Faria, p. 91).
Suzan Mazur observes self-censorship in America, and she searches sincerely for its causes. But the dark truth is that she has censored her own book. Because she's an evolutionist, she withheld from her readers a robust discussion of the many serious problems that are forcing evolutionists to such desperate solutions as self-assembly and self-organization.4 I would welcome a sequel from her documenting these in the same professional, journalistic (unbiased) fashion with which she's handled the majority of the material."

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCIX3YD_drk&t=3080s

Good video addressing the evidence for the global flood. Once you get past the skipping video on the display board, which lasts only a very short while.

[Amo]

https://thetruthsource.org/fish-fossils-on-mountains-against-slow-evolution/

THE TRUTH SOURCE

Fish Fossils on Mountains Against Slow Evolution

Scientists have found fossils of whales, fish, shellfish and other marine animals in mountains such as in the Andes.  Of course most scientists say it occurred 15 to 20 million years ago.  Yet, in there find they also state, as in the Chile find turned over to Dr. M. J. Novacek, chairman of American Museum of Natural History (1987), 'a violent upthrusting of the Andean chain carried the sediments to the tops of mountains ... the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief.'  Yes, brief as in the Great Flood in Noah's day.

In the mountains of Scotts Valley, California, paleontologist told newspapers in 2015 that the whale bones, shark teeth, and other marine fossils 'merged into the hills after more than a million years of earthquakes and tectonic plate shifts... maybe millions of years ago.'  Some even suggest it had something to do with evolution and or volcanic activities.

Logical reasoning tells you the fish needed water and it was water that carried them; and they are not at every level of sediment, so it was not a volcanic.  However, as the Bible states the 'plates' of the ocean did open, and 'the fountains of the deep' came forth, at the same time as the rains from the 'windows of heaven (Gen. 7:10-11).'

Also, reason will tell you that if it was an earthquake or local natural disaster then the bones would be isolated; but fossils of marine animals have been found in the Atacama and Sahara Deserts, as well as on top of Mount Everest.  But once again, in order to avoid the Biblical truth, many scientists retreat to saying tens of millions of years ago 'the entire earth was covered with water... and there was only one continent named Pangea which broke apart.'

However, others say, 'Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa and began to break apart about 200 million years ago during the Early Jurassic Period.'  They in fact teach that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge grew over 100 to 200 million years and that the continents separated but remained above water.   Agnostic scientists teach that because the earth is 4.6 billion years old, the crust is being destroyed along convergent plate boundaries at the same rate it is being created.

The truth is geologists on every continent have found fossils of sea creatures, from immature to fully grown, in rock layers well above sea level; such as in the Grand Canyon rim 7,000' above sea level.  Its Redwall Limestone is home to brachiopods, corals, crinoids (sea lilies), gastropods (snails), trilobites and other various marine fossils.  And one thing they have in common is their dismemberment.  The crinoids, for example, have their disks or columnals totally separated showing a catastrophic event occurred that destroyed and buried them in the lime sediment.

But not just at 7,000'; for marine fossils are found in the Himalayas, the 'rooftops of the world,' above 28,000'.  Marine cephalopod fossils are found in limestone beds in Nepal's mountains; and it is agreed that ocean waters carried them there and then receded.  The Psalmist explains, "The Lord ...set the earth on its foundations... (He) covered it with the watery depths as with a garment (the Flood); the waters stood above the mountains... they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place assigned for them... (Psa. 104:5-8)."   The continents have not sunk thousands of feet below sea level so the ocean flooded them.  In fact, the rock bed on the ocean is stronger than that above it – the land we see and live on.

Additionally, scientists teach that the Asthenosphere, layer of mantle beneath the lithosphere, which is made of mantle rock that flows very slowly, allows tectonic plates to move on top of it.  They teach of Continental Drifting and Accretion, the processes of flowing and continents growing.

When hundreds of years ago professors taught that clams slowly crawled to the tops of Italy's Appennines Mountains, Leonardo da Vinci, replied (about 1515), even in the best of conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights.

ew people know that there are about 230 flood legends told throughout Asia and Europe; Gilgamesh's flood account, in Sumerian records, Greek stories, India legends and so on.  Remember, scientists due admit and most every Chronicle Historical Timeline or in Anthropology that 'civilization began about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent.'  In Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers as describe in Genesis.

Let us remember, according to evolution the uplifting of the mountains took millions of years; however, many agnostic scientists do acknowledge that the marine fossils got there rapidly.  But also remember that the fossils are at every stage of marine life – from days old to full grow whales – all mixed and destroyed together, then embedded into softer rock limestone; as into mud.  It happened very quickly, not in million, or even thousands or even hundreds of years... no; in a matter of days.  And remember fossilized sea life lies upon every major mountain range on earth – even thousands of feet above sea level.  Slow moving plates and melting glaciers do not do that.  It was a world-wide catastrophic event – a world-wide Flood to be exact.

[The Barbarian]

Fortunately, we can actually measure the rate of continental movement.    GPS sensors, embedded in bedrock, show us that India is moving a few centimeters a year into Asia, and yes, the Himalyayas are rising a few centimeters a year.

Not surprisingly, when you measure these rates of motion, the fossils in those mountains are just old enough to fit the data.   

[The Barbarian]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionist_censorship

Evolutionist censorship

Evolutionist censorship refers to the practice of evolutionists attempting to censor information that might tend to refute their pet theory or that does not conform to their worldview.

Examples include:

Academic journals refusing to publish papers from Creation scientists.

You're a little confused here.   Censorship is when someone prevents you from publishing your stuff.   It is not when someone else doesn't want to put your stuff in his journal.    Private publishers get to publish what they like.   There are creationist journals, which don't publish from scientists who are not creationists.   However, most journals do publish papers by creationists, if they don't insert religious matters in them.

Refusing to release raw data from publicly funded research.[1]

Personal information on participants is normally not released for obvious reasons.   Hard to say what you're talking about.

Liberal professors not allowing students to question the integrity of the Theory of Evolution.

My first class in evolution, I listened to various students challenge the professor.   Of course, it was a public univesity, where that's pretty much standard.

Attempting to cover-up known fraudulent claims and hoaxes.

Haven't seen that.   Even creationists are pretty careful about doing hoaxes these days.   Got some examples?

Abusing the legal system to prevent the side-by-side presentation of competing theories by teachers.

It's that darn Bill of Rights again.    If we just didn't have religious freedom in America, creationists could preach their religious ideas in public schools.   Not likely to change anytime soon.

Atheists have also complained about this censorship, claiming that challenging the theory of evolution from a scientific perspective associates a person with the Religious Right, a key target of left-wing professors.

Turns out, that it's also unconstitutional to preach that there isn't any God.   

Owing to the liberal nature of the scientific and educational establishments, such censorship is commonplace in public schools and universities.

Public educational institutions are required to observe our religious freedoms.   Again, not likely to change.  Sorry.

A growing number of creation scientists and conservative educators are fighting this situation, however.

They've lost badly every time they tried to get around the Constitution.    Just not working for them.

[Amo]

Fortunately, we can actually measure the rate of continental movement.    GPS sensors, embedded in bedrock, show us that India is moving a few centimeters a year into Asia, and yes, the Himalyayas are rising a few centimeters a year.

Not surprisingly, when you measure these rates of motion, the fossils in those mountains are just old enough to fit the data.

Let us remember, according to evolution the uplifting of the mountains took millions of years; however, many agnostic scientists do acknowledge that the marine fossils got there rapidly.  But also remember that the fossils are at every stage of marine life – from days old to full grow whales – all mixed and destroyed together, then embedded into softer rock limestone; as into mud.  It happened very quickly, not in million, or even thousands or even hundreds of years... no; in a matter of days.  And remember fossilized sea life lies upon every major mountain range on earth – even thousands of feet above sea level.  Slow moving plates and melting glaciers do not do that.  It was a world-wide catastrophic event – a world-wide Flood to be exact.

The fossils are in mountains all round the world. They do not reveal slow staged evolutionary development. They reveal simple to complex all together, as they obviously were created all together and and destroyed all together during rapid events. Not deep time simple to complex evolutionary development or deep time fossilization and or preservation.

[Amo]

You're a little confused here.   Censorship is when someone prevents you from publishing your stuff.   It is not when someone else doesn't want to put your stuff in his journal.    Private publishers get to publish what they like.   There are creationist journals, which don't publish from scientists who are not creationists.   However, most journals do publish papers by creationists, if they don't insert religious matters in them.

Personal information on participants is normally not released for obvious reasons.   Hard to say what you're talking about.

My first class in evolution, I listened to various students challenge the professor.   Of course, it was a public univesity, where that's pretty much standard.

Haven't seen that.   Even creationists are pretty careful about doing hoaxes these days.   Got some examples?

It's that darn Bill of Rights again.    If we just didn't have religious freedom in America, creationists could preach their religious ideas in public schools.   Not likely to change anytime soon.

Turns out, that it's also unconstitutional to preach that there isn't any God.   

Public educational institutions are required to observe our religious freedoms.   Again, not likely to change.  Sorry.

They've lost badly every time they tried to get around the Constitution.    Just not working for them.

I am not confused or otherwise. You are not addressing me in the above, but rather the article quoted, and or those addressing censorship they themselves have experienced. Conservapedia I reckon.

[4WD]

Slow moving plates and melting glaciers do not do that.

Yeah, slow moving plates actually do that. They are doing that even now as Barbarian explained.