Princess Cruise Lines Singer Auditions

1 - How did life originate?


TUTTO intorno a noi c’è vita. Ce lo dicono il ronzio degli insetti, il canto degli uccelli, il fruscio degli animaletti nel sottobosco. La vita è presente nelle gelide regioni polari così come negli aridi deserti. Prospera dall’assolata superficie dei mari fino agli abissi più tenebrosi. Minuscole creature svolazzano nelle alte regioni dell’atmosfera. Innumerevoli trilioni di microrganismi sono all’opera sotto i nostri piedi per rendere fertile il suolo su cui cresce la vegetazione che sostiene altri organismi viventi.

2 Le forme di vita sulla terra sono così numerose e varie da sfidare l’immaginazione. Come ha avuto origine tutto questo? Come è venuto all’esistenza our planet and all its inhabitants? More specifically, it originated as a man? We have evolved from ape-like animals or have been created? As we came into existence? And yet, the answer affect our future? For a long time the man asks questions like these, in the minds of many questions that remain unanswered.

3 You may think that these questions have not really practical consequences. You might think: 'Who cares how they came into existence? Exist. And probably I will live 60 or 70 years, maybe 80, maybe. That we were created or we evolved, does not change anything for me now '. On the contrary, could change much: As you live, how you live and under what conditions you live. Why? Because our whole conception of life and the future depends on our view of the origin of life. And certainly the way in which it started life affect the course of history and place that we will have in it.

conflicting opinions
4 For many who accept the theory of evolution, life will always be made of strong competition, strife, hatred, war and death. Some even think that humans will self-destruct in the near future. A well-known scientist writes: "It may be that missing just a few decades, the Day of Judgement. . . . weapons development Nuclear and their delivery systems, sooner or later will lead to global disaster ".1 Although this does not happen in the short term, many people think that death, when it comes, however, put an end forever to the existence of a person. Others believe that, in future, all life on earth will end. According to one theory, the sun will expand to become a red giant star, with the result that "the oceans boil, the atmosphere will evaporate into space and a catastrophe of immense proportions than overwhelm the planet" .2

5 I " scientific creationists "are not in agreement with these conclusions. But their interpretation of the story of content creation in Genesis leads them to believe that the earth has only 6,000 years and that the six "days" of Genesis Creative have been only 24 hours long each. This idea, however, accurately represent what the Bible says? The land, with all forms of life, was really created in six literal days? Or is there a reasonable alternative?

6 When considering questions about the origin of life, many are influenced by various popular ideas or feelings. To prevent this from happening, and to arrive at meaningful conclusions, we must examine the facts objectively. It is also interesting to note that even the best-known proponent of evolution, Charles Darwin, si mostrò consapevole dei limiti della sua teoria. Nella conclusione del suo libro intitolato L’origine delle specie, Darwin parlò della grandiosità della “concezione della vita, con i suoi diversi poteri, originariamente impressi dal Creatore in poche forme, [o] in una forma sola”,3 indicando così che l’argomento delle origini era suscettibile di ulteriori approfondimenti.

Non mettiamo in discussione la scienza
7 Prima di andare avanti, può essere utile chiarire una cosa: Non intendiamo mettere in discussione la scienza e i suoi successi. Ogni persona informata sa che gli scienziati hanno ottenuto risultati sorprendenti in molti campi. La ricerca scientifica has increased in an extraordinary way that our knowledge is of the earth and the universe of the living. The study of the human body has led to better treat disease and trauma. Rapid advances in electronics have helped us in the computer age, which is changing the way we live. Scientists have made extraordinary feats, even sending men to the moon and returning them to earth. It is only right to appreciate their skills, since they have greatly increased our knowledge of the world around us, from the infinitely small to the infinitely large.

8 At this point can also be useful to define the terms. By evolution, in this book, this is the organic evolution, the theory that the first living organism would have developed from inanimate matter. Breed, then it would be transformed into different species, giving rise eventually to all forms of life existed or exist on earth, including humans. All this would have happened without the guidance of an intelligent or supernatural intervention. By creating, instead, it refers to the belief that the appearance of living beings can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who has designed and created the universe and all basic life forms on earth. Key questions


9 There are of course great differences between the theory of evolution and the creation account in Genesis. Proponents of evolution claim that creation is not scientific. But in all honesty you might as well ask the same evolution is really science? On the other hand, it is true that Genesis, as claimed by many, is just one of many ancient myths of creation? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science? And what about other questions that puzzle many: If there is an Almighty Creator, because there are all these wars, famines and diseases that cause premature death of millions of people? Why would God allow all this suffering? Also, if there is a Creatore, ha rivelato cosa ci riserva il futuro?

10 Lo scopo di questo libro è quello di prendere in esame le suddette domande e argomenti attinenti. Gli editori sperano che ne esaminiate il contenuto con mente aperta. Perché è così importante farlo? Perché queste informazioni potrebbero avere per voi un valore molto più grande di quanto possiate immaginare.



Cose su cui riflettere

Il nostro mondo è pieno di meraviglie:

Cose grandi: Un tramonto che infiamma il cielo con uno sfolgorio di colori. Un cielo notturno costellato di astri. Una foresta di alberi maestosi rischiarata rays of light. Jagged mountain ranges, with snow-covered peaks glinting in the sun. Undulating ocean agitated by the wind. These things fascinate us and leave us speechless.

Small Things: A tiny bird, the Dendroica striata, which flies high over the Atlantic to Africa to arrive in South America at about 6,000 meters above sea level crosses a prevailing wind that pushes America South led by its migratory instinct, it follows the direction for several days and over 3,800 miles: 20 grams of courage covered with feathers! Felt great admiration and wonder.

nifty things: bats that use sonar. Eels produce electricity. Gabbiani che dissalano l’acqua marina. Vespe che fabbricano carta. Termiti che installano condizionatori d’aria. Polipi che si spostano con un sistema a reazione. Uccelli che tessono o costruiscono appartamenti. Formiche che coltivano l’orto, cuciono o allevano bestiame. Lucciole con flash incorporato. Ci stupiamo di tanta ingegnosità.

Cose semplici: Quando la vita volge al termine, spesso ci si sofferma sulle piccole cose, cose che molto spesso si erano prese per scontate: Un sorriso. Il tocco di una mano. Una parola gentile. Un fiore delicato. Il canto di un uccello. Il tepore del sole.

Quando riflettiamo su queste cose, le grandi che ci lasciano senza fiato, le piccole che destano la nostra ammirazione, le ingenious that fascinate us, the simple and too late we learn to appreciate what we attribute? How to explain? How did they come into existence?

Johnny The Homicidal Maniac Light Bulb

2 - Contrasts evolution: why?


When, a century after the first edition, was prepared a special commemorative edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, was invited to write the introduction W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, Canada. In that introduction he wrote: "It is well known among biologists, there is a considerable difference of opinion not only on the causes of evolution, but also its actual mechanism. This divergence is due to the fact that the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not lead to any definite conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of non-specialists on the contrasts that exist in the field of evolution "in

Proponents of the theory of evolution consider it a fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual event", a "reality", a "truth" as the dictionary defines the word "fact." But is it?

2 For example, it is believed that the earth was flat. Now we know for sure that it roughly spherical shape. It was once thought that the earth was the center of the universe and the heavens revolved around it. We now know, beyond any doubt that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This is also a fact. Many things that were once only discussed theories were later proven and time are established facts, reality, truth.

3 An examination of the evidence for evolution would not lead to such a certainty? Interestingly, since in 1859 was published The Origin of Species Darwin, various aspects of his theory were the subject of considerable contrasts between them leading evolutionary scientists. Today, this debate is more heated than ever. And it is enlightening see what they say about themselves supporters of evolution.

Evolution accused
4 Discover The journal has described the situation: "Evolution. . . not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but also is questioned by reputable scientists. A growing disagreement with the prevailing concept of Darwinism is found among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record ".1 Francis Hitching, evolutionist and author of" The Neck of the Giraffe (The neck of the giraffe), writes: "In proportion to all enjoyed consensus in the scientific world as a great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, dopo un secolo e un quarto, si dibatte fra sorprendenti difficoltà”.2

5 Al termine di un’importante conferenza che ha visto riuniti a Chicago (Illinois, USA) circa 150 specialisti nel campo dell’evoluzione, è stato detto: “[L’evoluzione] sta attraversando la sua più grande e più profonda rivoluzione da quasi 50 anni a questa parte. . . . Esattamente come sia avvenuta l’evoluzione è ora oggetto di un’accesa controversia fra i biologi. . . . Non si intravedeva nessun modo chiaro per comporre le controversie”.3

6 Il paleontologo Niles Eldredge, noto evoluzionista, ha detto: “Il dubbio insinuatosi nella fiduciosa e compiaciuta certezza che ha caratterizzato gli ultimi vent’anni della biologia evoluzionistica ha infiammato gli animi”. Egli parla della “mancanza di completo accordo in seno agli stessi schieramenti in lotta”, e aggiunge: “Oggi come oggi la situazione è davvero in subbuglio. . . . A volte pare vi siano tante variazioni su ciascun tema [evoluzionistico] quanti sono i singoli biologi”.4

7 Christopher Booker, che scrive per il Times di Londra e che personalmente è favorevole all’evoluzione, afferma: “Era una teoria attraente e meravigliosamente semplice. L’unico guaio, come almeno in parte si rendeva conto lo stesso Darwin, erano le sue numerosissime e colossali lacune”. About the Origin of Species Darwin, the writer observes: "Here we are at the height of irony, in the sense that a book became famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does not contain anything like that." - The italics are ours.

8 Booker also says: "A century after Darwin's death, we have not demonstrated the slightest idea, or even plausible, to have been in effect as of the evolution, and in recent years this has resulted in an extraordinary series of battles on the whole issue. . . . among evolutionists themselves is hardly open war, and each group [evolutionary] sectarian claim some new changes. " Then concludes by saying: "The how and why we do not have occurred, and probably will never have the faintest idea" .5

9 Hitching evolutionist agrees, and says: "On the theory of ' developments have opened hostilities. . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were radicalized in high places, and insults flew from side to side as mortar shells. " In his view this is an academic dispute of far-reaching, "potentially one of those moments when, suddenly, an idea rooted in science is overthrown by the weight of evidence to the contrary and replaced by a new theory ".6 And the British journal New Scientist notes that" a growing number of scientists, including a growing number of evolutionists, he says. . . that the Darwinian theory of evolution is not a scientific theory itself. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials ".7

The dilemma of the origins
10 About the question of how life originated, the astronomer Robert Jastrow writes:" To their great regret, these questions [of scientists ] not have accurate answers, because the chemicals have never been able to reproduce the experiments of nature on the creation of life from nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how this happened. " He adds: "Scientists have no evidence that life was not the result of an act of creation" .8

11 But the problem is not limited only the origin of life. Take for example, organs like the eye, ear, brain. They are all incredible complexity, far superior to the more sophisticated man-made device. A problem for evolution is that all the parts of these bodies must work together because you can see, hear or think. These organs would be useless until it had been completed all the individual parts. It is therefore natural to ask: Is the blind case - considered a key factor for the development - has put together all these parts at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?

12 Darwin admitted that this was a problem, so he wrote: "To suppose that the eye. . . can be formed by [evolution], seems, I freely admit, utterly absurd ".9 It has since spent more than a century. The problem has been resolved, perhaps? No. Instead, what has been learned since the time of Darwin to the eye today indicates that the eye is even more complex di quanto pensasse lui. Per questo Jastrow dice riguardo all’occhio: “Si direbbe il frutto di un rigoroso progetto ingegneristico: nessun costruttore di telescopi avrebbe saputo fare di meglio”.10

13 Se questo vale per l’occhio, che dire allora del cervello umano? Dato che nemmeno il più semplice meccanismo si evolve per caso, come può ritenersi un fatto l’evoluzione del cervello, infinitamente più complesso? Jastrow conclude dicendo: “Se è difficile accettare che l’evoluzione dell’occhio umano sia prodotto del caso, lo è ancor più accettare che l’evoluzione dell’intelligenza umana sia il prodotto di guasti casuali verificatisi nelle cellule cerebrali of our ancestors ".11

The dilemma of fossil
14 million bones and other traces of ancient life forms have been unearthed by scientists, and are called fossils. If evolution were a fact, throughout this document should certainly find ample evidence of the existence of transitional forms between species. But the Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago says: "The Darwinian theory [of evolution] has always been intimately linked to the fossil record, and probably the majority of people think that the fossils are a cornerstone of Darwinian interpretations of history of life. Unfortunately not exactly so. "

15 Why? The bulletin adds that Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it did not correspond to his expectations. . . geological documentation, then as now, does not reveal a clear chain indicating a gradual slow and progressive evolution. " In fact today, after more than a century the fossil record, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's day," says Bulletin.12 Why? Why from the richest fossil record reveals that once some of the examples cited in support of evolution does not support it at all. 16 The inability

to find evidence of a gradual evolution in the fossil record annoys many evolutionists. In The evolution of evolution, Steven M. Stanley speaks of the 'general inability of the fossil record to show smooth transitions from an important group to another. " Stanley says: "The fossil record is not available, and never has been, in agreement [with a gradual evolution]" .13 Even Niles Eldredge admits: "The model that we were told to look over the past one hundred and twenty years there "14 More recent theories


17 This has led many scientists to formulate new theories of evolution. Science Digest, wrote: "Some scientists suggest evolutionary changes even more rapidly, and now take seriously ideas once common only in books of fiction" .15

18 For example, some scientists have concluded that life is not can be born naturally on earth. Suggest that instead have originated in space, and then was somehow transported here on earth. But this means only displace the problem of the origin of life, and in an even more hostile. They are well-known dangers that life in the hostile environment encountered in space. It is therefore plausible to consider that life arose spontaneously in some else in the universe and has withstood the extreme rigors of space and then come to earth and evolve into life forms we know today?

19 Since the fossil record does not reveal a gradual development of life from one form to another, some evolutionists assume that this was done intermittently, to jump, and not an ongoing process. The World Book Encyclopedia says: "According to many biologists new species can be produced by sudden and drastic changes in the genes"

.16 20 Some proponents of this theory speak of "punctuated equilibrium". The species, they say, they keep their "balance" (staying mostly unchanged), but occasionally there is a significant "leap" that evolves into something else. This is exactly the opposite of that theory for many decades has been accepted by almost all evolutionists. The gulf between the two theories was described in an article in the New York Times, entitled: "Against the theory of evolution quickly." The article pointed out that the new theory of 'punctuated equilibrium "had" aroused further opposition from supporters of the theory tradizionale.17

21 Whatever theory you support, should at least be some evidence that a form of life becomes in another. But among different life forms found in the fossil state, as well as among those now on earth, there was and continues to be a gap. 22 It is also symptomatic

what happened to the traditional concept of Darwinian "survival of the fittest." Darwin called it "natural selection", convinced that nature, "select" the organizations most likely to survive. He believed that these individuals "fit" to evolve slowly as they acquired new features that prove advantageous for them. But the facts show that the last one hundred twenty-five years, although the most suitable can actually survive, this does not explain the source. A lion may be more appropriate than another lion, but this does not explain how he became a lion. And all his descendants continue to be lions, not something else.

23 Writing in the journal Harper's, Tom Bethell said: "Darwin made a mistake serious enough to undermine the basis of his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . An organization may actually be 'more suitable' than another. . . This, of course, is not something that will serve to create the body. . . Clearly, I think, that such an idea something was very wrong. " Bethell added: "I think the conclusion is somewhat puzzling, I believe that Darwin's theory is about to collapse" .18

Fact or theory?
24 summarize some of the unsolved nodes of the theory of evolution, writes Francis Hitching, "In three crucial areas where it can be put to the test, [the modern theory of evolution] has not passed the exam: The fossil record reveals a pattern in evolutionary jumps and not a gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent the development of new forms. Random mutations and lens at the molecular level can not explain the organized and growing complexity of life. " - The italics are ours.

25 Hitching concludes by saying: "At least we have the right to question a theory that is the subject of so much uncertainty among its own supporters. To be the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism contains extraordinarily large areas of darkness. No answer to some of the most fundamental questions: how inanimate chemicals have become living matter, such as grammar rules are hidden behind the genetic code, how genes give shape to the living. " Hitching to the modern theory of evolution is "so inadequate as to deserve to be considered subject of faith" .19

26 Nevertheless, many proponents of evolution believe in fact that you have sufficient grounds to believe that evolution is a fact. They explain that their differences relate only to details. But if any other theory continues to struggle among such enormous difficulties, and to be the object of such obvious contradictions between his own supporters, would be called a fact so easily? Keep repeating that something is a fact not enough to make it so. As written by biologist John R. Durant in The Guardian of London, "Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic. . . Repeatedly the question of the origin of species was presented as if it had been finally resolved. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency persists to be dogmatic, and does not make a useful service to the cause of science ".20

27 On the other hand, what about the creation as an explanation of how life originated on Earth? Provides a key to most of the available evidence of valid assertions that often underpin the evolution? The best known story of creation, the Book of Genesis, sheds light on the origin of the earth in a credible and living?



"The computer scientists try in vain to imitate the visual ability man "

In an article titled as the New York Times reports:" Experts who follow one of the most daring dreams of - to build machines that think - have stumbled into one of the most basic steps apparently : have not been able to reproduce the visual faculty.

"After two decades of research have yet to teach machines how to perform a seemingly simple act, to recognize and distinguish between the most common subjects.

"Instead, they have come to regard with deep respect the sophisticated human visual mechanism. . . . The human retina is the envy of computer experts. Its 100 million rods and cones and its layers of neurons are running at least 10 billion operations per second. "

Dead Animal Smell In House How Long

3 - What does Genesis?


like other things misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a physical examination. We must analyze it and see if it conforms to the available facts, without trying to manipulate it to match some theoretical framework. It should also be noted that the Genesis was not written to explain the "mechanism" of creation. Rather, it is the main events in a progressive manner, describing what things were formed and in what order, as well as at what time - or "day" - each appeared for the first time. 2

examining the Genesis account is good to keep in mind that the events are described in terms of who is on earth. That are described as would appear to human observers if there were. You can see how events are displayed in the fourth "day" of Genesis. The sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are much larger than our sun, and compared them to our moon is insignificant. But not for those who observe them from the earth. Seen from the earth, the sun appears as a 'star maggiore che domina il giorno’ e la luna come un ‘astro minore che domina la notte’. — Genesi 1:14-18.

3 La prima parte di Genesi indica che la terra poteva esistere già da miliardi di anni prima che iniziasse il primo “giorno” di Genesi, anche se non specifica da quanto. Descrive comunque qual era l’aspetto della terra prima che iniziasse quel “giorno”: “Or la terra era informe e vacua e c’erano tenebre sulla superficie delle ondeggianti acque; e la forza attiva di Dio si muoveva sulla superficie delle acque”. — Genesi 1:2.

Quanto è lungo un “giorno” di Genesi?
4 Molti pensano che la parola “giorno” usata nel primo capitolo di Genesi si riferisca a un giorno di 24 ore. Ma in Genesi 1:5 vien detto che Dio stesso divise il giorno in un periodo di tempo più corto, chiamando “Giorno” il solo periodo di luce. In Genesi 2:4 si fa riferimento a tutti i periodi creativi come a un solo “giorno”: “Questa è la storia dei cieli e della terra nel tempo in cui furono creati, nel giorno [tutt’e sei i periodi creativi] che Geova Dio fece la terra e il cielo”.

5 Il termine ebraico yohm, tradotto “giorno”, può riferirsi a periodi di tempo diversi. Fra i possibili significati l’Old Testament Word Studies di William Wilson include i seguenti: “Giorno; termine generalmente usato in riferimento al tempo in generale, o a un lungo periodo di tempo; un intero periodo oggetto di studio . . . Giorno è anche usato per una particolare stagione o tempo in cui si verificano avvenimenti straordinari”.1 Quest’ultima definizione sembra adattarsi ai “giorni” creativi, perché furono senz’altro periodi in cui, come descritto, si verificarono avvenimenti straordinari. Può anche abbracciare periodi molto più lunghi di 24 ore.

6 Il primo capitolo di Genesi usa le espressioni “sera” e “mattina” con riferimento ai periodi creativi. Non indica questo che erano di 24 ore? Non necessariamente. In certe lingue spesso ci si riferisce all’arco di vita di una persona come al suo “giorno”. Si usano espressioni come “al giorno di mio padre” o “al giorno di Shakespeare”. Questo “giorno” o arco di vita può essere suddiviso in periodi più brevi. Anche nella nostra lingua sono infatti in uso espressioni metaforiche come “l’alba del secolo” o “il crepuscolo della vita”. Perciò l’uso dell’espressione ‘sera e mattina’ nel capitolo uno di Genesi non limita il significato della parola “giorno” a un letterale periodo di 24 ore.

7 “Giorno”, nella Bibbia, può includere estate e inverno, il passar delle stagioni. (Zaccaria 14:8) Il “giorno della mietitura” dura molti giorni. (Confronta Proverbi 25:13 e Genesi 30:14). Mille anni sono paragonati a un giorno. (Salmo 90:4; II Pietro 3:8, 10) Il “Giorno del Giudizio” abbraccia molti anni. (Matteo 10:15; 11:22-24) Sembrerebbe ragionevole che, in modo analogo, i “giorni” di Genesi possano aver abbracciato lunghi periodi di tempo, millenni. Che cosa avvenne dunque in quelle ere creative? Il racconto che ne fa la Bibbia è scientifico? Elenchiamo di seguito gli avvenimenti verificatisi in quei “giorni” secondo la narrazione di Genesi.

Primo “giorno” 8 “‘Si faccia luce’. Quindi si fece luce. E Dio chiamava la luce Giorno, ma chiamò le tenebre Notte. E si fece sera e si fece mattina, un primo giorno”. — Genesi 1:3, 5.

9 Naturalmente il sole e la luna esistevano nello spazio già molto tempo prima di questo primo “giorno”, ma la loro luce non raggiungeva la superficie terrestre così da poter essere visibile a un osservatore situato sulla terra. Evidentemente si fece luce nel senso che essa divenne visibile sulla terra in questo primo “giorno”, e sulla terra, a motivo della sua rotazione, cominciarono a susseguirsi il giorno e la notte.

10 A quanto pare la luce subentrò con un processo graduale, che richiese un lungo periodo di tempo, e non all’istante come quando si accende una lampadina. La traduzione di Genesi a cura di J. W. Watts lo evidenzia dicendo: “E la luce venne gradualmente all’esistenza”. (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) Questa luce proveniva dal sole, ma il sole stesso non era visibile attraverso il cielo coperto. Perciò la luce che raggiungeva la terra era “luce diffusa”, come indica un commento al versetto 3 nella Emphasised Bible di Rotherham. — Vedi la nota b sul versetto 14.

Secondo “giorno” 11 “‘Si faccia una distesa fra le acque e avvenga una divisione fra le acque e le acque’. Quindi Dio faceva la distesa e faceva a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And he did so. And God called the expanse Heaven. " - Genesis 1:6-8. 12

Some translations use the word "firmament" instead of "lying". Hence the idea that the Genesis account has borrowed from the myths of creation that represent this "firmament" as it once was steel. Agreed, but even the Bible, which uses the term "firmament," reported in a footnote "a". This is because the Hebrew word Raqia ', translated as "relaxed", meaning' stretch ',' extend ', ‘espandere’.

13 Il racconto di Genesi dice che fu Dio a far questo, ma non dice come. Comunque avvenisse la separazione, l’aspetto era come se le ‘acque al di sopra’ fossero state sollevate dalla terra. E in seguito si poté dire che gli uccelli volavano nella “distesa dei cieli”, come menzionato in Genesi 1:20.

Terzo “giorno” 14 “‘Le acque sotto i cieli si raccolgano in un sol luogo e appaia l’asciutto’. E così si fece. E Dio chiamava l’asciutto Terra, ma la riunione delle acque Mari”. (Genesi 1:9, 10) Anche in questo caso il racconto non spiega come ciò venisse fatto. Certamente l’emergere OF DRY had to involve the movement of huge masses of land. Geologists explain these major upheavals with "catastrophic". But Genesis emphasizes the guidance and supervision by a Creator.

15 In the biblical account in which God asks Job about his knowledge of the earth, it mentions a number of developments relating to the history of the earth: its measurements, its masses of clouds, the seas and how these waves dall'asciutto were bounded, that is, various general aspects of creation, spanning long periods of time. Among other things, comparing the land to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: "In what were its pedestals sunk with joint, or who laid the cornerstone? "- Job 38:6.

16 Interestingly, the earth's crust, such as "socket pedestals," is much thicker under the continents and even more in the mountain ranges, extending deep into the underlying mantle as the roots of a tree in the soil. "The idea that mountains and continents have roots has been repeatedly tested and has proven its usefulness," says Putnam's Geology.2 The oceanic crust has a thickness of about 8 km only, but the continental roots lie in the underground for more than 30 km, while the mountains reach a depth of approximately double. In addition, all layers of the earth pressing inward on the Earth's core, from all directions, making it, so to speak, a major cornerstone of support.

17 Whatever the means employed to bring out the dry surfaces, the important point is that both the Bible and science consider him one of the formative stages of the earth.

terrestrial vegetation on the third "day" 18 The biblical story goes on to say: "'Let the earth sprout grass, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in it, above the earth '. And he did so. " - Genesis 1:11.

19 Therefore, by the end of the third creative period had been created three broad categories of land plants. The scattered light was now becoming sufficiently strong enough to allow the photosynthesis process is essential to green plants. Incidentally, the story does not list here all the "species" of plants came into existence. Although not specifically mentioned, microorganisms, aquatic plants and others were probably created in this "day".

fourth "day" 20 "'Let the lights in the firmament of heaven to make a division between day and night: and they shall serve as signs and per le stagioni e per i giorni e gli anni. E dovranno servire come luminari nella distesa dei cieli per risplendere sopra la terra’. E così si fece. E Dio faceva i due grandi luminari, il luminare maggiore per dominare il giorno e il luminare minore per dominare la notte, e anche le stelle”. — Genesi 1:14-16.

21 Precedentemente, con riferimento al primo “giorno”, viene usata l’espressione “si faccia luce”. Lì la parola usata per “luce” è ’ohr, che significa luce in senso generale. Ma il quarto “giorno” la parola ebraica diventa ma’òhr, che si riferisce alla fonte della luce. Rotherham, in una nota su “Luminari” nell'Emphasised Bible says: "To see 3, 'or [' ohr], diffused light. " It continues by explaining that the Hebrew word ma'òhr, in verse 14, indicates that something which emanates light. " Apparently the first "day" diffused light streams through the bands that wrap around the planet, but the sources of that light would not be visible to an observer located on the ground, because of the layers of clouds that still surround the planet. Apparently in this fourth "day" the situation changed. 22

atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have led to a warm climate throughout the earth. But the lush vegetation growth in the third and fourth period would absorb the creative part of this blanket of carbon dioxide that trap heat. In turn, the vegetation would liberate oxygen, essential to animal life. - Psalm 136:7-9.

23 At that point any observer located on the ground would have been able to distinguish the sun, moon and stars, which were to "serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years." (Genesis 1:14) The moon would have marked the passing of the lunar months, and the sun that the solar year. The seasons that came into existence in this fourth "day" would certainly be much more lenient in how they became below. - Genesis 1:15, 8:20-22.

fifth "day" 24 "'Let the waters swarm of living souls and a swarm of flying creatures fly above the earth on the face of the expanse of heaven'. And God created great whales and every living soul that moves, which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. " - Genesis 1:20, 21.

25 Interestingly, the non-human creatures were swarming in the waters are called "living souls." This term also applied to the 'flying creatures that fly above the earth on the face of the expanse'. It included anche quelle forme di vita sia acquatiche che volatili, come i mostri marini, i cui resti fossili sono stati scoperti dagli scienziati in tempi recenti.

Sesto “giorno” 26 “‘Produca la terra anime viventi secondo la loro specie, animali domestici e animali che si muovono e bestie selvagge della terra secondo la loro specie’. E così si fece”. — Genesi 1:24.

27 Così nel sesto “giorno” fecero la loro comparsa gli animali terrestri, sia selvatici che domestici. Ma quest’ultimo “giorno” non era terminato. Doveva venire all’esistenza un’ultima notevole “specie”:

28 “E Dio went on to say: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and keep in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and the whole earth and every living thing that moves upon the earth'. And God created man in His own image, the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. " - Genesis 1:26, 27.

29 The second chapter of Genesis provides apparently more details. But it is not, as some think, a different account of creation as opposed to that of Chapter 1. Simply takes the narrative from one point to the third day after onset but before OF DRY creation of terrestrial plants, adding interesting details to the arrival of early man: the living soul Adam, the garden in which they live, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife. - Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.

30 We have mentioned this information to give an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat Genesis says. And this very realistic story indicates that the creative process went forward not only for 144 hours (6 × 24), but for many millennia.

How did the writer of Genesis know that?
31 For many it is difficult to accept this account of creation. Say it comes from the creation myths common among primitive peoples, mainly those of ancient Babylon. But a recent Bible Dictionary notes: "I do not yet know what any myth that refers explicitly to the creation of the universe" and myths are characterized by polytheism and the struggles for supremacy among the gods, in sharp contrast to the monotheism of the Jewish [Genesis ] 1-2 ".3 By the Babylonian legends of creation, the curators of the British Museum had to say:" The fundamentals of the Babylonian and Hebrew documents are essentially different ".4

32 From what we have seen, the story of creation in Genesis is scientifically valid, a document shows. Mention the main categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, which reproduce only "after their kind." The fossil record confirms this. In fact reveals the sudden appearance of each "species" with no actual transitional forms that linking to some "species" above, how would the theory of evolution.

33 All knowledge of the sages of Egypt could not provide to Moses, the writer of Genesis, no clue about the creative process. The creation myths of ancient peoples did not resemble at all to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Moses drew from what source all that information? Obviously by someone who was present.

34 Probability provides a striking proof that the story of creation in Genesis must have originated from a source familiar with the events. The story lists ten major stages, in this order: (1) a principle, (2) a land shrouded in darkness and dense primordial gas clouds and water, (3) light, (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5 ) large areas of dry, (6) land plants; (7) visibility of the sun, moon and stars in the firmament and the beginning of the season, (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and domestic animals, mammals, ( 10) the man. Science agrees that these stadiums have succeeded in that general. What are the odds that the writer of Genesis guess this order by chance? The same extract at random from a box the numbers 1 through 10 in consecutive order. The probability of success on the first try is a 3,628,800! It is therefore not realistic to think that the writer of Genesis has the event listed in the right order for the events mentioned above, without being in some way acquainted with the facts.

35 But the theory of evolution does not admit the existence of a Creator who is present, know the facts and could then reveal to men. He attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of organisms living from inanimate chemicals. But it is possible that chemical reactions do not drive and if they create at the mercy of the simple life? Scientists are just convinced that this is could be? Please read the next chapter.



The Babylonian myth of creation from which, according to some, the creation account in Genesis would have drawn inspiration:

The god Apsu and the goddess Tiamat created the other gods.

Later Apsu was angry with these gods and tried to kill them, but was himself killed by the god Ea.

Tiamat, for revenge, tried to kill Ea, but instead was killed by Marduk, the son of Ea.

Marduk split Tiamat's body into two: one half he made the heavens and the earth with each other.

Then Marduk, with the help of Ea, created humanity from the blood of another god, Kingu.a

you believe that this legend has some similarity with the story of creation in Genesis?



Here's what he said a well-known geologist on the creation account in Genesis:

"If as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas about the origin of the earth and the development of life on it a people of simple shepherds, as the tribes to which he addressed the Book of Genesis, hardly potrei fare di meglio che seguire piuttosto da vicino gran parte delle espressioni contenute nel primo capitolo della Genesi”.b Questo geologo, Wallace Pratt, fa pure notare che l’ordine degli avvenimenti — dall’origine degli oceani all’emergere dell’asciutto, alla comparsa della vita nei mari, agli uccelli e ai mammiferi — corrisponde essenzialmente alla successione delle principali ere geologiche.

09 Honda Pilot Front License Plate Bracket

4 - Life may have originated by chance?


QUANDO Charles Darwin propose la sua teoria dell’evoluzione ammise che la vita poteva essere stata ‘originariamente impressa dal Creatore in poche forme, o in una forma sola’.1 Ma l’attuale teoria dell’evoluzione non fa di solito no mention of a Creator. On the contrary, the theory of spontaneous generation of life, once rejected has been revived in a different form.

2 The hypothesis of spontaneous generation of life can be traced back to centuries ago. In the seventeenth century, even prominent scientists like Francis Bacon and William Harvey accepted this theory. But by the nineteenth century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had struck a blow to the seemingly decisive experimental demonstration that life could come only from other life existing. However, by necessity, the theory of evolution based on the assumption that, long ago, life at the microscopic level is somehow spontaneously created by inanimate matter.

A new form of spontaneous generation
3 This view current evolutionary origin of life is summed up in a book by Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Dawkins suggests that early Earth's atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Under the pressure of sunlight energy, and possibly lightning and volcanic eruptions, these compounds would split the elementary and later reassembled to form amino acids. Several of these would gradually accumulated in the sea, then form compounds similar to proteins. Finally, Dawkins says, the sea became a "primordial soup" organic, although ancora privo di vita.

4 “A un certo punto”, sempre secondo la descrizione di Dawkins, “una molecola particolarmente ragguardevole”, una molecola dotata della capacità di riprodursi, “si formò accidentalmente”. Pur ammettendo che un simile evento accidentale sarebbe stato estremamente improbabile, Dawkins afferma che deve comunque essere avvenuto. Molecole affini si sarebbero raggruppate, e poi, per un evento fortuito estremamente improbabile, si sarebbero ricoperte di una parete protettiva formata da altre molecole proteiche a mo’ di membrana. Così, ci vien detto, si autogenerò la prima cellula vivente.2

5 A questo punto il lettore potrebbe cominciare a capire il sense of the claim that Dawkins makes in the introduction to his book: "This book should be read as if it were science fiction" .3 If you do a search on the subject, one realizes that this approach is not an isolated case. Most texts on the evolution of flying over the enormous difficulty of explaining how life may have originated from inanimate matter. Hence the words of William Thorpe, Institute of Zoology, University of Cambridge, to my colleagues: "All the speculation and simplistic arguments published in the last ten or fifteen years to explain how life originated has proved to be too naive and not very credible. In fact, the problem seems far from solution as much as before ".4

6 The explosive growth of scientific knowledge in recent years has done nothing but accentuate the chasm that separates the living from inanimate matter. Even the oldest known one-celled organisms have proved infinitely complex. "The problem for biology is to achieve a simple principle," say the astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. "The fossil residues of ancient life forms found in the rocks do not reveal a simple principle. . . . Therefore, the theory of evolution lacks a proper basis ".5 And with the increase of knowledge is increasingly difficult to explain how they are able to come to the existence of microscopic life forms so incredibly complex.

7 main stages to arrive at the origin of life, according to evolutionary theory are: (1) the existence of suitable primitive atmosphere and (2) the concentration of a nutrient in the oceans of organic molecules "simple" necessary for life. (3) formed from these proteins and nucleotides (chemical complex) (4) aggregate and is covered with a membrane, after which (5) developed a genetic code and began to reproduce copies of themselves. These steps are consistent with the data available?

The primitive atmosphere
8 In 1953, Stanley Miller subjected to electric shocks an 'atmosphere' of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. It produced some of the many existing and amino acids that constitute the building blocks they are made of proteins. Miller won only 4 of the 20 amino acids essential to life. More than thirty years later, scientists were not able to experimentally produce all 20 amino acids necessary conditions that could be considered plausible.

9 Miller was assumed that the primitive atmosphere of Earth was similar to that of the ball used in his experiment. Why? Because, as dissero in seguito lui e un suo collaboratore, “la sintesi dei composti di interesse biologico può verificarsi solo in condizioni riducenti [in assenza di ossigeno libero nell’atmosfera]”.6 Ma secondo le teorie di altri evoluzionisti, l’ossigeno c’era. Il dilemma che questo pone all’evoluzione è così riassunto da Hitching: “Se nell’aria c’era ossigeno, il primo amminoacido non si sarebbe mai formato; senza ossigeno, sarebbe stato eliminato dai raggi cosmici”.7

10 Il fatto è che qualsiasi tentativo di determinare la composizione dell’atmosfera primitiva della terra non può che essere congetturale. Nessuno sa con esattezza da cosa fosse composta.

could form a "soup" organic?
11 is highly unlikely that the alleged amino acids formed in the atmosphere they were going to end up in the oceans, and form a "stock" plan. The same energy that is supposed to have split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would more rapidly decomposed any amino acid complex has been determined. Interestingly, in his experiment of 'atmosphere' subjected to electric shocks, Miller saved the four amino acids obtained because they took off from where the lightning occurred. If I had left them, they would discharge decomposed. Assuming

12 however, that in some way the amino acids were able to reach the ocean and to find protection from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, which would have happened? Hitching said: "Under the surface there would be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions, water inhibits the formation of ever more complex molecules" .8

13 Therefore, once in water, amino acids would leave due to form larger molecules and proteins useful in evolving to the formation of life. But once out of the water, they would have found exposed to the destructive ultraviolet rays! In other words, writes Hitching, "The probability theory to overcome even this relatively simple first stage [the formation of amino acids] in the evolution of life are infinitely small" .9

14 Although commonly say that life arose spontaneously in the oceans, water is not is not an environment conducive to the necessary chemical reactions. The chemist Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore difficult to imagine how it could have achieved cure [the union of simple molecules in most forms of greater] in the aqueous primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [ the breakdown of larger molecules in simpler molecules] rather than the reverse reaction ".10 The biochemist George Wald has the same opinion, and says:" The spontaneous dissolution is much more likely, and then proceeds much faster than the spontaneous synthesis. This means that you could not accumulate any organic soup! According to Wald, this is "the hardest problem for us [evolutionists] .11

15 But there is another big problem that the theory of evolution has to overcome. Please note that there are over 100 amino acids, which, however, only 20 are needed to proteins of life. Moreover, they are present in two configurations: Molecules sono “destrogire”, mentre altre sono “levogire”. Se si formassero a caso, come in un ipotetico “brodo primordiale”, molto probabilmente metà degli amminoacidi sarebbero destrogiri e metà levogiri. Non c’è inoltre alcuna ragione nota per cui nei viventi l’una o l’altra delle due forme debba essere preferibile. Eppure, dei 20 amminoacidi utilizzati nella sintesi delle proteine della vita, tutti sono levogiri!

16 Com’è possibile che, per caso, nel brodo si raggruppassero solo amminoacidi del tipo specificamente richiesto? Il fisico J. D. Bernal afferma: “Si deve ammettere che [ciò] . . . continua ad essere uno degli aspetti structural life more difficult to explain. " He concludes: "Perhaps we will never explain" 12

Protein spontaneous and probability
17 What are the odds that amino acids just unite to form a protein molecule? You could make an example of a big pile consists of an equal number of red beans and white beans well mixed. The pile of beans are also present in more than 100 varieties. If infilaste a shovel into the pile, are you going? To make the beans so that they represent the basic components of a protein, you should take only the red ones: either a white bean. Also, with the paddle should taking only 20 varieties of red beans, each of which should be in a particular point of the blade. In the world of proteins, a single mistake in any of these issues would prevent the protein to get to work properly. Continue to stir our hypothetical pile of beans and to insert the blade, we could finally get the right combination? No. How is it possible that this happened in the hypothetical organic soup?

18 proteins essential to life have very complex molecules. What are the odds that even one simple protein molecule is formed accidentally in an organic soup? Evolutionists admit that the odds would be soltanto una su 10113 (1 seguito da 113 zeri). Ma qualsiasi evento le cui probabilità di verificarsi siano anche solo una su 1050 viene scartato dai matematici nella convinzione che non si verificherà mai. Per avere un’idea delle probabilità in questione, si pensi che 10113 è un numero superiore a quello di tutti gli atomi presumibilmente esistenti nell’universo!

19 Alcune proteine servono come materiali strutturali e altre come enzimi. Queste ultime accelerano le reazioni chimiche necessarie alla vita cellulare. Senza questo aiuto la cellula morrebbe. Le proteine enzimatiche necessarie al suo funzionamento non sono poche: ne servono 2.000. Che probabilità ci sono che venissero a trovarsi tutte insieme per caso? Una su 1040.000! "A probability so immeasurably small," says Hoyle, "that there could be addressed even if the entire universe was formed by an organic soup." He adds: "If a person is not affected, or social beliefs or by their scientific training, thinking that life originated [spontaneously in] on Earth, this simple calculation should be sufficient to completely erase this idea" .13

20 In fact, the chances are even lower than this figure indicates that "disproportionately small". The cell must be surrounded by a membrane. But this membrane is extremely complex, formed by protein molecules, sugars and fats. The evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: "Today's cell membranes are equipped with channels and pumps that regulate the entry and exit of nutrients, waste products, metals and so on. These channels require specialized proteins highly specific molecules that could not be present at the very beginning of the evolution of life ".14

The unique genetic code
21 are even more difficult to synthesize nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which contains the genetic code. Five histones are associated with DNA (histones is expected to have to do with control of genes). The chances of an accidental short of even the most basic of them would be one in 20,100 histones, another huge number, "which exceeds the total of all atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the highest astronomical telescopes" .15

22 But the theory of evolution even greater difficulties as regards the source of the entire genetic code, which is essential for the reproduction of the cell. The old chicken and egg riddle is repeated about proteins and DNA. Hitching said: "The formation of proteins depends on the DNA. But DNA can not be formed without a pre-existing protein ".16 Hence the paradox mentioned by Dickerson, "To the question: 'There appeared the first one or the other? [Ie, the enzyme proteins or nucleic acids] 'must be answered:' We have developed in parallel '".17 In other words, is saying that the' egg 'and' hen 'must have evolved simultaneously, without the' the other one has failed. Sounds like a reasonable conclusion? A science writer sums up the matter with these words: "The origin of the genetic code is a puzzle similar to the egg and the chicken, which is a problem still to be resolved" .18 23 The chemical

Dickerson also makes this interesting statement: "The evolution of the genetic mechanism is the phase for which there are no laboratory models, so you can speculate endlessly, not being hampered by any inconvenient fact" .19 It is scientifically correct to put aside so easily this avalanche of ' inconvenient facts'? Leslie Orgel defines the existence of the genetic code "the most disconcerting aspect of the problem of the origins of life" .20 For his part, Francis Crick concludes: "The mechanism necessary to give effect to the genetic code, which is almost universal, is too complex to be born in one fell swoop ".21

24 The theory of evolution seeks to eliminate la necessità di far avvenire l’impossibile “in un colpo solo” presupponendo un processo graduale che abbia consentito alla selezione naturale di agire lentamente. Ma senza il codice genetico che permettesse di dare inizio alla riproduzione non poteva esistere il materiale sul quale la selezione naturale avrebbe dovuto operare.

La sorprendente fotosintesi
25 C’è un altro ostacolo che la teoria dell’evoluzione deve sormontare. A un certo punto la cellula primitiva dovette escogitare qualcosa che avrebbe rivoluzionato la vita sulla terra: la fotosintesi. Questo processo, mediante il quale le piante assorbono anidride carbonica e cedono ossigeno, non è ancora del tutto compreso dagli scienziati. As the biologist F. W. Went, "is a process that so far nobody has been able to reproduce in test tubes" .22 Yet some people believe that just a tiny cell is able to produce it by accident.

26 Thanks to photosynthesis, an atmosphere devoid of free oxygen turned into an atmosphere in which an oxygen molecule in five. This made possible the life of animals that breathe oxygen, and the formation of an ozone layer that protects all life from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. One can attribute this amazing set of circumstances to the case?

intelligence is needed?
27 Di fronte alle astronomiche probabilità contrarie alla formazione accidentale di una cellula vivente, alcuni evoluzionisti si vedono costretti a fare marcia indietro. Per esempio, Hoyle e Wickramasinghe, autori di Evoluzione dallo spazio, si arrendono, dicendo: “Questi problemi sono troppo complessi per poterli esprimere numericamente”. E aggiungono: “Non c’è alcun modo . . . di risolvere i nostri problemi disponendo semplicemente di un brodo organico maggiore e migliore, come noi stessi speravamo che fosse possibile solo un paio di anni fa. I numeri che abbiamo ottenuto sono tali da lasciare così poche speranze alla scala dell’universo come a quella terrestre”.23

28 Quindi, dopo have recognized that to give rise to life there must be some way desired intelligence, the authors say: "In fact such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not accepted by all as evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific ".24 An observer might conclude that the only plausible explanation of why the majority of evolutionists prefer to believe a random source of life rather than - in the words of Dawkins -" on a drawing or a purpose or an intended direction, "25 is a barrier to the 'psychological'. Even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say they believe that the origin of life is attributable to a Creatore.26 According to their reasoning, intelligence is necessary prerequisite, but the idea of \u200b\u200ba Creator is unacceptable. There seems to be a contradictory attitude?

is science?

29 To be accepted as scientific fact, the spontaneous origin of life should be proved with scientific method, described as follows: Observe what is happening, on the basis of these observations a theory about what might be true as the theory with further observations and experiments, and see if the predictions based on it come true.

30 Wanting to apply the scientific method, it is not possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that this is happening now and, of course, no human observer was present when, according to evolutionists, this would happen. No theory on the matter was verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to replicate. Predictions based on this theory were not fulfilled. Given the impossibility of applying the scientific method, it is scientifically correct to raise such a theory to the status of that? 31

other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the generation spontaneous life from inanimate matter is not possible. "Just think of the vastness of this undertaking," admits George Wald, a professor at Harvard, "to conclude that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." But then it says to believe this evolution? "Yet here we are: and I am convinced that we are a result of a spontaneous generation" .27 There seems to be a scientific or objective conclusion?

32 The British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger called this reasoning "real dogmatism: pretending you want to believe that what is actually happened" .28 What was that scientists sono arrivati ad accettare nella loro mente questa palese contraddizione del metodo scientifico? Il noto evoluzionista Loren Eiseley ammise: “Dopo aver rimproverato il teologo per la sua fiducia nel mito e nel miracolo, la scienza si è trovata nell’imbarazzante situazione di dover creare una propria mitologia, ovvero la supposizione che ciò che, nonostante lunghi tentativi, non si poteva dimostrare avvenisse oggi fosse realmente avvenuto nel passato primordiale”.29

33 Stando così le cose, si può dire che la teoria della generazione spontanea della vita trovi posto più nel reame della fantascienza che in quello dei fatti scientifici. A quanto pare molti suoi sostenitori hanno messo da parte in questo caso il metodo scientific to believe what they want to believe. Despite the overwhelming odds against accidental origin of life, a tenacious dogmatism prevails over caution normally suggested by the scientific method.

Not all scientists accept it

34 However, not all scientists reject a priori the alternative. The physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the enormous odds against spontaneous origin of life, says: "The only plausible explanation is creation. I know this is taboo for physicists, as it is in fact for me, but we must not reject a theory that if we do not like is supported by the evidence experimental. " It also notes that, after Darwin's The Origin of Species, "evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, most scientists have accepted it and many are ready to 'touch up' the results of their observations to fit in it ".30 Sad but true.

35 Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor at University College, Cardiff, said: "From the beginning of my scientific studies, have been subjected to a vigorous brainwashing because convince me that science can not accept any kind of deliberate creation. There has been very hard to leave due to the concept. The situation, the mental condition where I am now, it's pretty uncomfortable. But there is no logical way out. . . . Consider the life of the result of a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on the beaches of all the planets in the universe, and find him. " In other words, it is possible that life is the result of a chemical accident. Wickramasinghe then concludes: "There is no other way we can understand the exact order of chemical substances vital if not appealing to the creations on a cosmic scale" .31 36 As

says astronomer Robert Jastrow, "scientists have evidence that life was not the result an act of creation ".32

37 But even assuming that a first living cell is somehow coming into existence spontaneously, there is evidence that has evolved, giving life to all living creatures and lived on the earth? The fossils provide the answer, and the next chapter will examine what it says in fact the fossil record.



feedback on yesterday's and today's evolutionary origin of life

"The hypothesis that life developed from inorganic matter is still an article of faith." - JWN Sullivan, matematicod

"The chances that life originated by chance is comparable to the probability of a complete dictionary is formed as a result of an explosion in a printing press. " - Edwin Conklin, biologoe

"Just think of the vastness of this undertaking to conclude that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." - George Wald, biochimicof

"An honest man, armed with all the current knowledge, can only say that for now, in a sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle." - Francis Crick, biologog

"If a person is qualified, or social beliefs or by their scientific training, to think that life originated [spontaneously in] on Earth, this simple calculation [of mathematical probabilities otherwise] should be sufficient to completely erase this idea. " - Fred Hoyle and NC Wickramasinghe, astronomers



The incredible cell



A living cell is extraordinarily complex. The biologist Francis Crick, while trying to describe in simple terms the complex functioning of the cell, you realize you can only go up to a certain point, which invites the reader to 'do not try to master all the details'.

Le istruzioni contenute nel DNA della cellula, “se messe per iscritto, occuperebbero 1.000 volumi di 600 pagine l’uno”, dice National Geographic. “Ogni cellula è un mondo che trabocca di minuscoli aggregati di atomi chiamati molecole, il cui numero può arrivare a 200.000 miliardi. . . . I nostri 46 cromosomi, che hanno forma di filamenti, se allineati misurerebbero più di un metro e 80 centimetri. Eppure il nucleo in cui sono racchiusi ha un diametro inferiore a 10 millesimi di millimetro”.b

La rivista Newsweek, per dare un’idea dell’attività cellulare, fa questo esempio: “Ciascuna di questi 100.000 miliardi di cellule funziona come una città cinta da mura. Ci sono centrali elettriche che producono l’energia di cui la cellula ha bisogno. Ci sono fabbriche di proteine, elementi indispensabili per lo scambio chimico. Complessi sistemi di trasporto guidano particolari sostanze chimiche da un punto all’altro della cellula e fuori. Sentinelle ai posti di blocco controllano le esportazioni e le importazioni, e scrutano il mondo esterno in cerca di segnali di pericolo. Disciplinate truppe biologiche si tengono pronte a intervenire contro gli invasori. Un governo genetico centrale mantiene l’ordine”.c

Quando per la prima volta fu proposta la moderna teoria dell’evoluzione, gli scienziati avevano solo un’idea molto vaga della fantastica complessità di una cellula vivente. Nella pagina accanto sono illustrate alcune parti di una cellula tipo, tutte contenute in un involucro di soli 0,025 millimetri di diametro.

How To Make A Billiard Birthday Cake

6 - yawning chasm: the evolution can fill them?


THE FOSSILS provide tangible evidence of the various forms of life that existed long before the arrival of man. But evolutionists have not provided the expected confirmation of their ideas on the origin of life or how they came into existence new forms of life. About the absence of transitional fossils of organisms that can bridge the gaps biological, Francis Hitching notes: "The curious thing is that the fossil gaps follow a consistent pattern: the fossils are missing in all the important points" .1

2 The important points to which it relates Hitching the gaps between the major divisions of animal life. One example is the alleged development of fish from invertebrates, creatures having no spine. "In the fossil record," he says, "the fish jump out seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, fully formed" .2 zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his spiegazione evoluzionistica della comparsa dei pesci dicendo: “In un certo senso questo è un racconto di fantascienza”.3

3 Secondo la teoria dell’evoluzione, certi pesci sarebbero divenuti anfibi, certi anfibi si sarebbero trasformati in rettili, dai rettili si sarebbero evoluti mammiferi e uccelli e, infine, alcuni mammiferi sarebbero divenuti uomini. Nel capitolo precedente si è visto che queste asserzioni non hanno il sostegno della documentazione fossile. Questo capitolo si concentrerà sulla vastità dei cambiamenti che avrebbero dovuto contrassegnare i presunti stadi di transizione. Mentre andate avanti, chiedetevi quante probabilità ci sono che questi cambiamenti si verificassero spontaneamente sotto la spinta of blind chance.

The gap between fish and amphibians
4 What distinguished from invertebrates to fish was the spine. Why become an amphibious fish - a creature that can live both in water and on land - the spine should undergo significant changes. It was necessary to add a pelvis, but not known fish fossils that show how it developed, the pelvis of amphibians. In some amphibians, like frogs and toads, the entire spine should have been transformed beyond recognition. Even the bones of the skull are different. In addition, the formation of amphibians on the theory of evolution, the fins of fish should have become legs with joints and fingers, accompanied by significant changes in the muscles and nerves. The gills should have been turned into the lungs. In fish, in addition, blood is pumped by a heart with two cavities, while amphibians have a heart with three cavities.

5 To bridge the gap between fish and amphibians would also require a considerable change in the auditory system. Normally the fish perceive sound through the body, while the majority of toads and frogs has eardrums. The language would need to change: no fish has an extensible language, but this in amphibians such as frogs. Amphibians' eyes have more in the eyelids, which can move the eyeball to keep it clean. 6

have made enormous efforts in trying to connect with some fish to amphibians which would result, but without success. Among the favorites were the candidates dipnoi since, in addition to the gills, are able to breathe through the swim bladder, a system that takes when you are temporarily out of the water. The Fishes The book says: "It is tempting to believe that they can have a direct link with the amphibians that gave rise to vertebrates living on land. Not so, they are a completely separate group "4 David Attenborough rejects both dipnoi celacantidi that because" the bones of their skulls are in fact so different from those of the early fossil amphibians as to exclude a derivation ".5

The gap between amphibians and reptiles
7 Trying to bridge the gap between amphibians and reptiles has other serious problems. One of the most complex is in explaining the origin of the egg with the shell. Creatures previous reptiles laid their eggs soft and gelatinous in water, where the eggs were fertilized externally. Reptiles live on land and lay their eggs there, but within these embryos still needs an aqueous medium. The egg with the shell was the solution, but would require a major change in the fertilization process: it was necessary that fertilization would take place within, before the egg was surrounded by a shell. To do so would serve new sexual organs, new systems and new mating instincts: in short, an enormous gap between amphibians and reptiles.

8 Enclose the egg in a shell would have required more exciting changes that will first develop and then escape from the shell of the reptile. For example, within the shell membranes and various bags are needed, such as the amnion. This keeps the liquid in which the embryo develops. In the book The Reptiles, Archie Carr describes another membrane called the allantois, "The allantois receives and accumulates waste of the embryo, acting as a kind of bladder. It is also equipped with blood vessels that pick up oxygen that penetrates through the shell and bring it to the embryo ".6

9 Evolution does not explain other important differences still. The embryos contained in the eggs of fish and amphibians release their waste into the surrounding water soluble form of urea. But inside the reptile eggs, supplies of shell, urea kill the embryo. So here we see that the egg shell with a major chemical transformation: the waste in the form of insoluble uric acid are deposited in the allantoic membrane. Consider this: the egg yolk serves as nourishment for the embryo of a reptile, allowing them to grow and reach full development before it exits the shell: this unlike amphibians, which do not come from the egg stage as individuals adult. And to be able to leave the shell of the embryo has a characteristic "egg tooth" with which he breaks the shell that imprisons him.

10 To bridge the gap between reptiles, amphibians would take a lot more, but these examples are enough to indicate that blind chance could not have given all the many and complex changes which are necessary to bridge a chasm so vast. Not surprisingly, the evolutionist Archie Carr complains, saying that "one of the most disappointing in the history of the fossils is that it tells us very little about the evolution of reptiles during the period when they were developing this ability to lay eggs in their shells" .7

L 'gap between reptiles and birds
11 Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, which means that their temperature increases or decreases the variation of the external one. The birds, however, are warm-blooded animals. Their body maintains a relatively constant internal temperature regardless of the outside. To solve the puzzle of how birds, warm-blooded, have been able to evolve from reptiles, in cold blood, some evolutionists now claim that some dinosaurs (which were reptiles) were warm-blooded animals. But the general opinion is still the one expressed by Robert Jastrow: "The dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded" .8

Lecomte du Noüy 12, a French evolutionist, said that the assumption that the birds (warm-blooded) Derived from the reptiles (cold blooded) "is presented to us today as one of the biggest mysteries of evolution." He also admitted that the birds have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation" .9 unsatisfactory, of course, for the theory of evolution. While

13 essendo vero che sia i rettili che gli uccelli depongono uova, solo gli uccelli devono covarle. Per questo sono dotati di particolari caratteristiche. Molti uccelli hanno sul petto un’apposita zona sprovvista di penne e opportunamente vascolarizzata per trasmettere il calore alle uova. Alcuni uccelli, sprovvisti di una zona corporea adatta, si strappano le penne dal petto. Inoltre, perché gli uccelli covassero le uova, l’evoluzione avrebbe dovuto far nascere in loro nuovi istinti in rapporto alla costruzione del nido, al dischiudersi delle uova e all’alimentazione dei piccoli, tutti comportamenti altruistici e premurosi che richiedono abilità, fatica e una volontaria esposizione al pericolo. Tutto ciò costituisce un ampio divario fra rettili and birds. But there is still other.


14 pens are a unique feature of birds. We would argue that the scales of reptiles have been accidentally transformed into these extraordinary formations. From the spine, the central axis of the pen, branching files beards. Every beard has many barbules, and each has hundreds of barbicels barbules and hooks. Microscopic examination, a pen of pigeons have turned hundreds of thousands and millions of barbules and barbicels uncinetti.10 These hooks hold together all parts of the pen to form flat or curved. Nothing exceeds the feathers to aerodynamics, and the few substances equals come isolante termico. Un uccello delle dimensioni di un cigno ha circa 25.000 penne.

15 Se le barbe di queste penne si divaricano, vengono pettinate col becco. Il becco esercita pressione sulle barbe che vi passano in mezzo, e gli uncini situati sulle barbule si riagganciano come i denti di una chiusura lampo. La maggior parte degli uccelli possiede alla base della coda una ghiandola che secerne un liquido oleoso, col quale lubrificano le singole penne. Certi uccelli, sprovvisti di questa ghiandola, hanno particolari penne che, logorandosi in punta, producono una polvere finissima simile al talco la quale utilizzano per la cura delle penne. E di solito le penne si rinnovano per muda, una volta l’anno.

16 Alla luce di tutte queste informazioni on bird feathers, notice that you try to give surprising explanation about their development: "What was the evolution of this beautiful structure? You do not need a great effort of imagination to see the pen as a modified scale that is substantially similar to that of reptiles, shell of an oblong shape, not firmly attached, whose edges are frayed and extended to take up the remarkably complex structure they present ".11 This explanation seems rather scientific or science fiction?


17 Consider also the way in which the birds are designed for flight. The bones of birds are thin and hollow, while those dei rettili sono piene. Tuttavia per il volo sono necessarie ossa robuste, per cui all’interno quelle degli uccelli sono rinforzate, come le ali degli aeroplani. Questa particolare struttura delle ossa serve anche a un altro scopo, che evidenzia un’altra straordinaria caratteristica degli uccelli, cioè il loro apparato respiratorio.

18 Il continuo lavoro muscolare necessario per battere le ali per ore o anche giorni di volo genera notevole calore. Gli uccelli, sprovvisti di ghiandole sudoripare che provvedano al raffreddamento, risolvono il problema raffreddando il “motore” ad aria. Un sistema di sacchi aerei permette all’aria di raggiungere quasi tutte le parti importanti del corpo, penetrando addirittura nelle cavità bone, so that the body is cooled by this air circulating inside. Thanks to these air sacs, birds take in oxygen from the air much more efficiently than any other vertebrate. In what way?

19 In reptiles and mammals the lungs suck and expel air as bellows which inflate and deflate alternately. But in birds there is a constant flow of fresh air that passes through the lungs during both the inspiration and in that of exhalation. In simple terms, the system works like this: during inspiration, air enters in some air sacs that act as bellows to send it to the lungs. Air passes from the lungs to other bags then expel the air. This means that the lungs are constantly crossed by a stream of fresh air in a single direction, like a stream of water flowing through a sponge. The blood in the capillaries of the lungs instead of flowing in the opposite direction. It is this flow of blood and air in opposite directions, making it exceptionally respiratory system of birds. Thanks to it, the birds are able to breathe the rarefied air of high altitudes, flying for days to more than 6,000 meters above sea level as they migrate thousands of miles away.

20 There are other features that are widening the gap between reptiles and birds. One is the view. From eagles to small songbirds such as Dendroica, birds have eyes that work like telescopes and eyes that work like magnifying glasses. There are more sensory cells in their eyes than it has any other living creature. Even the legs of birds are special. When they alight on a branch, the tendons are automatically so that the fingers Serrin around the branch. And, while reptiles have five fingers, the birds have only four. In addition, birds do not have vocal cords, but a syringe which shone like the melodious songs of the nightingale and the mime multilingual. The heart of reptiles, then, has three cavities, while the bird has four. All types of beaks distinguish birds from reptiles: beaks that work like Nutcracker beaks to filter food from the water muddy, that nose, hammering, drilling holes in trees, beaks, like that of crossbills, pine cones that open. A seemingly endless variety. Yet it would support the bill, a sign of a project so specialized, evolved by chance from the face of a reptilian! Sounds like a plausible explanation?

21 A time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, which means "ancient wing" or "old bird", was a link between reptiles and birds. But today many are not convinced. Its fossil remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on the wings with aerodynamic profile capable of flying. The bones of the wings and lower limbs were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are found in some birds still exist. It did not precede the birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks from the same period as those in which Archaeopteryx was found .12

The gap between reptiles and mammals
22 Significant differences clearly separate reptiles and mammals. The name itself, "mammals," said suffered a big difference: the existence of mammary glands that secrete milk for the children who are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky formed the hypothesis that these mammary glands were "sweat glands undergone change" .13 But reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, the sweat glands do not produce a food substance, but eliminate waste products. And unlike the newborn reptiles, small mammals have both the instinct that the muscles needed to suck the milk.

23 mammals have other characteristics that reptiles do not possess. In mammals, the placenta of pregnant females have a very complex organ necessary for the nourishment and development of the unborn. Reptiles do not have it. Are also devoid of the diaphragm, while in mammals a diaphragm separates the chest from the abdomen. The organ of Corti, this ear of mammals, what is lacking in dei rettili. Questo minuscolo ma complesso organo è dotato di 20.000 cellule acustiche e 30.000 terminazioni nervose. I mammiferi hanno una temperatura corporea costante, i rettili no.

24 Inoltre, i mammiferi hanno nell’orecchio tre ossicini, mentre i rettili ne hanno uno solo. Da dove sono venuti i due ossicini in più? La teoria dell’evoluzione tenta questa spiegazione: I rettili hanno almeno quattro ossa nella mandibola, mentre i mammiferi ne hanno uno solo; quando i rettili si trasformarono in mammiferi, vi sarebbe stato un rimescolamento delle ossa: alcune sarebbero passate dalla mandibola del rettile all’orecchio medio del mammifero a formarvi i tre ossicini, cosa che lasciò un osso per la mandibola dei mammiferi. But the problem in this reasoning is that there is the least fossil evidence that confirms its existence. It's just a guess based on the desire that things went well.

25 Another issue still concerns the bones: In reptiles, legs branch off laterally from the body, so that the belly is in contact or near the ground, while in mammals the legs are located under the body and keep it off the ground . About this diversity, Dobzhansky remarked, "This change, as it may seem small, it has required significant modifications of the skeleton and muscles." He admitted then that there was another big difference between reptiles and mammals: "The teeth mammals are remarkably elaborate. Instead of simple wedge-shaped teeth of reptiles, in mammals there is a wide variety of suitable teeth to clench, grab, punch, cut, crush or grind the food ".14

26 A final point: When the amphibians evolved into reptiles , the waste would be eliminated, as has been said, but no longer as urea as uric acid. But where, as we are told, reptiles evolved into mammals, the situation changed again. The mammals returned to the system of amphibians, eliminating waste in the form of urea. The development would then go back, which theoretically should not happen. The abyss

more
27 From physical point of view, the man falls within the general definition of a mammal. But an evolutionist said: "It is not likely to commit errors is tragic that the man considered 'just a pet'. Man is unique, different from all other animals in several ways: language, tradition, culture and an enormously long period of development and parental care ".15 28

What clearly distinguishes man from all other earthly creatures is his brain. The information contained in the approximately 100 billion neurons in the human brain would fill some twenty million volumes! The powers of abstraction and language clearly separate the man from any animal, and the ability to accumulate knowledge and remember it is one of the most extraordinary human qualities. The use of this knowledge has enabled him to overcome all the other living species on earth, to the point of going to the moon and back. As one scientist, the human brain really is different and infinitely more complex than any other object in the known universe ".16

29 Another feature that makes the abyss between man and animals the greatest of all are his moral and spiritual qualities such as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is what relates the story of Genesis when it says that man is made 'in the image and likeness of God'. And the deepest abyss is what separates man from animals. - Genesis 1:26.

Among the 30 major divisions of living things, then there are significant differences. Many different anatomical structures, instincts programmed and quality separate them from each other. It is reasonable to think that they are the product of purely random events? As we have seen, this view is not supported by the fossil record. Fossils are not found to bridge the above gaps. In the words of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, "in the literature [fossil] missing intermediates. Now we see why, that is basically because there were no intermediate forms ".17 For those whose ears are willing to hear the testimony of the fossil is" special creation ".

2010 Sportwagen Tdi Vw Review

5 - The fossil evidence


I FOSSILI sono resti di antiche forme di vita preservati nella crosta terrestre. Può trattarsi di scheletri o di parti d’essi, come ossa, denti o gusci. Un fossile può anche consistere in una traccia — ad esempio un’orma o un’impronta — lasciata da quello che un tempo era un organismo vivente. Molti fossili non contengono più la sostanza organica originale, ma sono costituiti da depositi minerali che, infiltratisi, ne hanno assunto la forma.

2 Perché i fossili sono importanti per l’evoluzione? Un genetista, G. L. Stebbins, ne sottolinea una ragione fondamentale: “Nessun biologo ha effettivamente visto l’origine di un importante gruppo di organismi per evoluzione”.1 Perciò oggi non si vedono sulla terra organismi viventi che si evolvano in altre forme di vita. Al contrario, sono tutti morfologicamente completi e distinti dagli altri tipi. Come osservò il genetista Theodosius Dobzhansky, “il mondo vivente non è una singola sequenza . . . collegata da serie ininterrotte di gradi intermedi”.2 E Charles Darwin ammise che “la distinzione delle forme [viventi] specifiche, e il fatto che esse non sono collegate da innumerevoli anelli di transizione, costituisce una difficoltà very clear ".3

3 Therefore the different varieties of organisms living today not in any way support the theory of evolution. That is why the fossil record, gained as much importance. It was thought that the fossils could at least provide confirmation of the theory of evolution needed. What to Look


4 If evolution were a fact, the fossil record certainly reveal the gradual transformation of a living species to another. And so it should be, regardless of which of the various evolutionary theories are welcome. The same scientists who support the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium' or "intermittent" theory that predicts the most rapid changes, they recognize that the alleged changes would, however, occurred over many thousands of years. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there is no need for fossil link.

5 Moreover, if evolution was based on fact, the fossil record should show sketches of new organs in living things. There should be at least some fossils with legs, wings, eyes, bones and other organs during development. For example, should be fins of fish that were turning in legs of amphibians, with feet and toes, and gills that were evolving in the lungs. You should find reptiles with forelimbs that were transformed into birds' wings, the hind legs that were changing in clawed paws, scales that were becoming pens, and mouths were transformed into horny beak.

6 Speaking of this theory, the British magazine New Scientist said: "It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lines of organisms indicating a continuous and gradual change over long periods of time" .4 As Darwin himself asserted, "really must be the huge number of intermediate varieties which formerly existed on earth ".5

7 On the other hand, if the creation account in Genesis is true, the fossil record does not should contain traces of life forms in flux. Should reflect the statement of Genesis that each of the different forms of life would be reproduced only "after their kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Moreover, if the living came into existence through a creative act, in the fossil record should not find bones or incomplete organs, under development. All the fossils should be complete and highly complex, as the living today.

8 Moreover, if the living were created, one might expect that appeared suddenly in the fossil record, with no previous connections with life. What would happen If you find that this is so? Darwin admitted frankly: "If many species. . . were actually appeared suddenly, this fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution ".6

To what extent is the full documentation?
9 However, the fossil record is sufficiently complete to permit, after an honest assessment of whether supports the creation or evolution? More than a century ago, Darwin thought not. What was wrong in the fossil record available in his day? Did not contain the transitional links needed to support his theory. This prompted him to say: "Why, then, every geological formation and every stratum are full of such intermediate links? What is certain is that geology does not reveal such a perfectly graduated organic chain, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection that can be done to the theory ".7

10 The fossil record exists in the days of Darwin was also a disappointment for him in another respect. Darwin explained: "The sudden appearance of whole groups of species, in some formations, was challenged by several paleontologists. . . as a decisive objection to the theory of transformation of species. " And again: "There is a second difficulty with the first, and much more serious. I refer to the sudden appearance of species a diverse fra le principali suddivisioni del regno animale nelle rocce fossilifere più profonde che si conoscano. . . . Il problema è attualmente insolubile; e può essere un valido argomento contro le opinioni [evoluzionistiche] qui esposte”.8

11 Darwin cercò di risolvere questi enormi problemi mettendo sotto accusa la documentazione fossile. Ad esempio disse: “Considero i dati geologici come una storia del mondo tramandata imperfetta. . . . La nobile scienza della geologia perde gloria per la estrema incompletezza dei documenti”.9 Sia lui che altri pensavano che col passar del tempo si sarebbero certamente trovati gli anelli fossili mancanti.

12 Ora, dopo ben oltre un secolo di scavi intensive, was unearthed a wealth of fossils. The documentation is still just as "imperfect"? The book Processes of Organic Evolution (Processes of organic evolution) observes: "The records of ancient forms of life is now complete and is enhanced as more and more paleontologists find, describe and compare the new fossils" .10 E Porter Kier, researcher the Smithsonian Institution, added: "In museums around the world there are a hundred million fossils, all recorded and identified" 11 Therefore, in Guide to the history of the Earth says: "With the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us a excellent picture of life in ages past '.12

13 After all this time, and with all the millions of fossils collected, what now reveal the documentation? Steven Stanley, evolutionist, says that the fossils "reveal something new and surprising about our biological" .13 The book A vision of life, written by three evolutionists, he adds: "In the fossil are seen many trends that paleontologists do not were able to explain ".14 What do find so" amazing "and 'inexplicable' these evolutionists?

14 What is puzzling the scientists is the fact that the large number of fossils available today shows exactly the same as that revealed the days of Darwin: the basic living species suddenly appeared and have not undergone appreciable changes for long periods of time. I have never found a link between two key species. Therefore, the fossil evidence attests to the exact opposite of what many expected.

15 After forty years of research, the Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation: "In light of the paleontological data can not even do a caricature of evolution. The collection of fossils is now so complete that. . . the lack of transitional series can not be attributed to the scarcity of material. The gaps are real and will never be filled "15

life suddenly appears
16 look more closely at the evidence. In his book, Red Giants and White Dwarfs (red giants and white dwarfs), Robert Jastrow says: "At some point during the first billion years, appeared on the surface of the earth life. Slowly, as evidenced by the fossil, living organisms began their ascent from the most simple to the complex. " From this description one would expect the fossil record certifying a slow evolution from the first "simple" life forms to more complex ones. Yet the same book says: "That crucial first billion years, during which life originated, is made of blank pages in the history of the earth ".16

17 And then, it is correct to define" simple "these early forms of life? "If we go back in time to the period of the older rocks," says Evolution from Space, "the fossil residues of ancient life forms found in the rocks do not reveal a simple principle. Although we may be inclined to consider simple bacteria and algae fossils and fossil fungi than a dog or a horse, their level of information, however, remains enormously high. The majority of the biochemical complexity of life was already present at the time in cui si formarono le rocce più antiche della superficie terrestre”.17

18 Da questo inizio, è possibile trovare una qualsiasi testimonianza indicante che organismi unicellulari si siano evoluti in organismi pluricellulari? “La documentazione fossile non contiene tracce di questi stadi preliminari nello sviluppo degli organismi pluricellulari”, dice Jastrow.18 E sempre lui afferma: “I reperti fossili conservati nelle rocce contengono molto poco oltre a batteri e piante unicellulari, finché, circa un miliardo di anni fa, dopo un progresso invisibile protrattosi per circa tre miliardi di anni, si ebbe un decisivo salto di qualità: sulla Terra comparvero i primi organismi pluricellulari”.19

19 Consequently, at the beginning of what is called the Cambrian period, we see in the fossil record to an inexplicable turn spectacular. A wide variety of sea creatures complex and fully developed, many of them with a hard outer shell, appear so suddenly that, in relation to this period, there is often talk of an 'explosion' of living creatures. A vision of life the book describes it as follows: "In an interval of 10 million years at the beginning of the Cambrian period, appeared all major groups of invertebrates with skeleton, giving rise to the greatest explosion of diversification registratasi on our planet." Appeared gastropods, sponges, starfish, trilobites (an extinct type of shellfish) and many other sea creatures. Interestingly, the same book says: "Some extinct trilobites had eyes more complex and efficient than any other arthropod living" .20

There are 20 rings of fossil link between this explosion of life and life forms earlier? At the time of Darwin, these rings did not exist. He admitted: "I can not find satisfactory answer to the question why there are no rich deposits of fossils belonging to these supposedly primitive periods, earlier Cambrian era" .21 The situation is different today? About Darwin's observation the "sudden appearance of whole groups of species," the paleontologist Alfred S. Romer wrote, "Under the [Cambrian], there are considerable thickness of sedimentary formations where they should be the progenitors of recognizable forms in the Cambrian. But they are not, in these ancient layers and there is little sign of life, and one could say that the general picture is consistent with the idea of \u200b\u200ba special creation at the beginning of the Cambrian. 'When asked why there are no rich deposits of fossils belonging to these supposedly primitive periods, earlier Cambrian era,' said Darwin, 'I can not find a satisfactory reply'. Nor can we find us today ".22

21 Some argue that the Precambrian rocks have been altered too much by heat and pressure to preserve fossils of joining the rings, or in shallow seas were not able to retain sediment rock fossils. "None of these assumptions has been confirmed," say the evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. He adds, "have been discovered many Precambrian rocks do not change, which do not contain fossils of complex organisms" .23

22 These facts have led the biochemical D. B. Gower said: "The story of creation contained in Genesis and the theory of evolution were irreconcilable. Uno dei due doveva essere giusto e l’altro sbagliato. La storia dei fossili dava ragione al racconto della Genesi. Nelle rocce più antiche non abbiamo trovato una serie di fossili che mostrasse i cambiamenti graduali dalle creature più primitive alle forme sviluppate, ma piuttosto, nelle rocce più antiche, l’improvvisa comparsa di specie sviluppate. Fra una specie e l’altra c’era un’assenza totale di fossili intermedi”.24

23 Lo zoologo Harold Coffin è giunto a questa conclusione: “Se l’ipotesi dell’evoluzione graduale dal semplice al complesso è esatta, si dovrebbero poter trovare gli antenati di queste creature viventi improvvisamente apparse nel Cambriano; ma non have been found and scientists admit that there is little hope to find them in the future. According to the facts only, based on what actually is in the earth, the most likely theory is that of a sudden creative act that gave rise to the major forms of life ".25

Repeat the sudden appearance, minimal changes
24 in the upper layers to the 'explosion' of life in the Cambrian, fossil evidence is always the same: new animal and plant species occur suddenly, without any links to previous forms of life. And once it came into existence, perpetuated with little change. The book The Evolution evolution says: "Now the fossil record reveals that, in most cases, the species survive for hundreds of thousands, or millions, of generations to evolve without appreciably. . . . Since its origin onwards, the species suffered mostly minor changes, before becoming extinct "

.26 25 For example, insects appear suddenly in the fossil record, and in great abundance, without any evolutionary ancestor. And until today have not changed much. About the discovery of a fossil fly which has been assigned "40 million years," Dr. George Poinar jr. says: "The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to that of flies present. Wings, legs, head and even the internal cellular structure have a very modern ".27 And in a commentary published in the Globe and Mail of Toronto that read:" Having risen to 40 million years the evolutionary scale, they have done in virtually no appreciable progress ".28

26 A similar picture can be found about the plants. The rocks are fossil leaves of many trees and shrubs that differ little from those of the same plants that exist today: oak, walnut, hickory, vines, magnolia, palm and many others. The animals follow the same pattern. The ancestors of those living today appear suddenly in the fossil record, and are very similar to their counterparts living. There are many varieties, but all are easily identifiable with the same "species". Discover magazine highlights an example: "The horseshoe crab [Xiphosura polyphemus]. . . There is virtually unchanged for 200 million years ".29 Even the animals that became extinct followed the same pattern. The dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no connection to ancestral forms. Multiplied considerably, and then die out.

27 In this regard, the Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago says: "In the sequence of the species appear very suddenly, shows an almost absolute stability or in the course of their existence in the documentation, and then disappear abruptly from it. It is not always clear - indeed, it is rarely - if their descendants were actually better suited than their predecessors. In other words, it is difficult to see an improvement in organic .30


No features of transition
28 Another difficulty is the fact that the evolution in the fossil record can not occur in any bone or body part sizes that can be interpreted as sketches of new features. There are, for example, fossil various types of flying creatures: birds, bats, pterodactyls extinct. According to the theory of evolution have evolved from ancestral forms of transition. But they have not found a single one. There is not a trace. There are fossils of giraffes with long necks two thirds or three quarters of the current giraffe? There are fossils of birds whose bill was being evolved from a reptilian jaw? There is some evidence from the fossils of fish that they were developing a basin like that of amphibians, or fish whose fins were turning into legs, feet and toes of amphibians? The facts show that the search for these characteristics of transition in the fossil record has proved fruitless.

29 New Scientist points out that evolution "predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lines of organisms indicating a continuous and gradual change over long periods of time." But he admits: "Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet these expectations, because each fossil species are rarely linked together by intermediate forms known. . . . it seems that the known fossil species do not evolve even over millions of years ".31 And the geneticist Stebbins writes," There are no known transitional forms between any of the major phyla of animals or plants. " He speaks of the "big gap between many of the major categories of bodies" .32 As acknowledged by the book The evolution of evolution, "the fossil record does not, in fact, convincingly no transition from one species to another. Moreover, the species are to persist for surprisingly long periods of time "33 - The italics are ours.

30 This is consistent with the comprehensive study prepared by the Geological Society of London and Paleontological Association of England, whose results John N. Moore, professor of natural sciences, wrote: "About 120 scientists, all specialists, have completed the thirty chapters of a monumental work of more than 800 pages to present the fossil record of plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . As you can see, each major form or type of plant and animal has a history separate and independent of all other forms or types! Both groups of plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, rabbits, squirrels, etc.., Appeared for the first time when they were all distinct from each other as they are today. There is no trace of a common ancestor, and even less connected with some reptile, alleged father ". Moore adds: "In the fossil record could not find transitional forms, most likely because there are no own forms of transition in the fossil record. It is very likely that there has never been a transition from one species to another and / or a plant species to another ".34

31 Therefore the situation in the days of Darwin has not changed. The fossil evidence is still some years ago that described by the zoologist D'Arcy Thompson in his book On Growth and Form (On Growth and Form): "Darwinian evolution is not explained to us how birds descended from reptiles, mammals the early quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, from invertebrates or vertebrates. . . . Going to try to form a link is to seek to fill gaps in vain, forever ".35

And the horse?
32 However, it was often said that at least the horse is a classic example of evolution documented by fossils. The World Book Encyclopedia says: "The horses are among the most documented examples of evolutionary development" .36 The figures used to illustrate the topic begin with a small animal and end with the great horses of today. But this really has the support of fossil evidence?

33 The Encyclopædia Britannica notes, "The evolution of the horse has never been a straight" 37 In other words, the fossil evidence does not reveal a gradual development from all the small animal al cavallo grande. L’evoluzionista Hitching, a proposito di questo tanto decantato modello evolutivo, dice: “Descritto un tempo come semplice e lampante, è ora così complicato che l’accettare una versione anziché un’altra è più una questione di fede che di scelta razionale. Eohippus, il presunto cavallo primitivo, che secondo gli esperti si sarebbe estinto molto tempo fa e che ci è noto solo attraverso i fossili, potrebbe in realtà essere vivo e vegeto e potrebbe non essere affatto un cavallo, bensì un timido animale delle dimensioni di una volpe, una procavia che si vede sfrecciare nella boscaglia africana”.38

34 Definire il piccolo Eohippus l’antenato del cavallo richiede uno sforzo d’immaginazione, specialmente alla luce di ciò che dice il libro L’evoluzione dell’evoluzione: “Per molto tempo . . . si credette che [l’Eohippus] si fosse lentamente, ma continuamente, trasformato in un animale dai caratteri più tipicamente equini”. Ma questo assunto è sostenuto dai fatti? “Le specie fossili di [Eohippus] mostrano scarse tracce di modificazioni evolutive”, risponde lo stesso libro. Parlando delle testimonianze fossili, ammette perciò che “non documentano l’intera storia della famiglia degli equidi”.39

35 Pertanto ora alcuni scienziati dicono che il piccolo Eohippus non è mai stato un cavallo né un its ancestor. And each type included in the online horse fossil reveals a remarkable stability, with no transitional forms between it and other alleged evolutionary ancestors. It should not seem surprising that there are fossils of horses in different shapes and sizes. Horses still range from small ponies to large horses. They are all varieties in the family of horses.

What really say the fossils
36 If you let speak the fossil record, his testimony is not in favor of evolution, but creation. Shows that many different species of living creatures suddenly appeared. Even with a wide variety within each species, they were not connected in any way with the evolutionary ancestral form, nor were they united by evolutionary link to other living species came after them. Various species maintained a greater stability for long periods of time before becoming extinct, while others still exist.

37 "The concept of evolution can not be regarded as a scientifically proven explanation for the presence of different forms of life," says the evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life (Order: in life). Why? "No careful analysis of biogeographical distribution and the fossil record," he adds, "can withstand a direct evolution" .40

38 Il ricercatore imparziale è chiaramente portato a concludere che i fossili non sostengono la teoria dell’evoluzione. Anzi, l’evidenza fossile accresce sensibilmente il peso degli argomenti a favore della creazione. Lo zoologo Coffin scrive: “Per gli scienziati laici, i fossili, tracce di vita passata, costituiscono l’ultima e decisiva corte d’appello, perché la documentazione fossile è l’unica storia autentica della vita di cui possa disporre la scienza. Se questa storia fossile non concorda con la teoria dell’evoluzione — e abbiamo visto che non concorda — cosa dobbiamo dedurne? Dobbiamo dedurne che le piante e gli animali furono creati nelle loro forme fondamentali. The essential facts of the fossil record support the creation, not evolution ".41 The astronomer Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, recognizes that 'the fossil record could be reconciled with the idea of \u200b\u200ba great project'.



What the fossils say. . . the origin of living

On the origin of life:

"The Book of age, recorded in the crust, is made for at least three-quarters of white pages." - The world viviamoc

"The first steps. . . are not known;. . . no trace left of it. " - Red Giants and White Dwarfsd

On multicellular life:

"How to have originated multicellular animal organisms, and if this has occurred once or more and one or more ways, are constantly debated and difficult issues that result. . . 'In the final analysis, practically insoluble'. " - Sciencee

"The fossil record does not contain traces of these preliminary stages in the development of multicellular organisms." - Red Giants and White Dwarfsf

on plant life:

"Most botanists addresses the documentation fossil to shed light on the subject. But. . . was not found nothing useful for this purpose. . . . There is no trace of ancestral forms. - The Natural History of Palmsg

insects:

"The fossil record provides no information on the origin of insects." - Encyclopædia Britannicah

"There are no known fossils that lets you know what they looked like the ancestors of insects." - The insects

on vertebrates:

"The fossil remains, however, does not provide information about of vertebrates. " - Encyclopædia Britannicaj

on fish:

"To our knowledge, no 'ring' connecting this new animal to any previous form of life. The fish just appeared. " - Marvels & Mysteries of Our Animal Worldk

On fish evolved into amphibians:

"Exactly how or why it evolved is something that probably will never know." - The Fishesl

that amphibians evolved into reptiles

"One of the most disappointing in the history of the fossils is the that it tells us very little about the evolution of reptiles during the period when they were developing this ability to lay eggs in their shells. " - The rettilim

On reptiles evolved into mammals

"There is no ring [linking] mammals and reptiles." - The Reptilesn

'Fossils, unfortunately, provide very little information about the animals that are believed to have been the first true mammals'. - Mammals

On reptiles evolved into birds

"The transition from reptiles to birds is even more poorly documented. - Processes of Organic Evolutionp

"It has not been found any fossil of a reptile that resembles a bird." - The World Book Encyclopediaq

On the apes:

"Unfortunately, the fossil record that would allow us to shed light on the emergence of great apes is still hopelessly incomplete." - The Primatesr

"The apes, for example, seem to have come out of nowhere. They have no past, no fossil record. " - Science Digests

from apes to humans:

"There are no fossils or other physical evidence directly linking the man with the apes." - Science Digestt

"The human family consists of a single line of descent that leads from an apelike ancestor to our species." - The evolution of evolution