July 17, 2008
-
Evolution Irrefutably Proven False
And I’m going to do it in only 17 examples (even though only one or two are needed), but there are dozens more where these came from. I am stating these facts in the simplest of ways. Some of them do need to be elaborated on in order to convince some people, but they still remain facts. If you want elaborations, tell me what you want elaborated.
[Begin]
1) The Coelacanth fish, which supposedly
evolved millions and millions of years ago into some other animal, was recently found still
living, and still unevolved.2) Birds prove that natural
selection is incorrect. (I’m trying to keep this comment short, so
just ask if you want me elaborate.)3) For evolution to be true, there would have been innumerable
transitional forms between different types of creatures. Therefore, for
every known fossil species, many more must have existed to connect it
to its ancestors and descendants4)
The improbability that not only one monkey would randomly turn into a
human over time, but that TONS of monkeys would randomly turn into
humans over time. What are the chances that all those monkeys would
randomly turn into the same animals (humans)?5) A design needs a designer.
6)
Everything needs a beginning unless it is not restricted by the laws of
science and time. So if the Big Bang is real, it is truly a higher
being worthy of being worshiped for being able to exist outside of
science and time.7) The theory of evolution claims that
organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top
scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single
organic
living cell. A single “simple” cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747
jet, and all the parts of a jet, from the tiny screws to the wings
themselves, do not just randomly come together to form a jet without
someone actually doing the handiwork.8) Human egg and sperm disproves evolution (ask for elaboration).
9) The scientific fact of DNA replication–including a built-in error checking
method and a DNA repair process–proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The
fact is, any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.10)
The proven 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution. I know
you’ve probably learned how to refute this, but I can refute your
refutation if you want me to.11) There is no scientific evidence that a species
can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. Man could not evolve from a
monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If
an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some
deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to
the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.12) Evolutionists never <i>ever</i> answer the question of the origin of matter
because they know that something cannot come from nothing. They just ignore the problem.13)
The Big Bang could not have happened–you can’t take a bunch of
“nothingness,” and then compact that “nothingness” into a tiny spot of
“nothing,” and that “nothingness” cannot get hot because there is
nothing there, and that “nothingness” cannot just suddenly explode and
create something, let alone a whole universe. Even if there was an
ignition of some sort, there is still nothing to ignite, and nothing to
ignite it with, because, as they claim, there was nothing. The Big
Bang is just a story that was made up to get people to not believe in
God, just as Jesus said would happen.14) Mars has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the “spark” of life
according to the evolutionary theory. Yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation
or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.15) Radio silence in space proves evolution is wrong. (Ask for elaboration.)
16) Timeline and archaeology prove evolution is wrong. (Ask for elaboration.)
17) Statistical mathematics proves evolution is wrong. (This on is obvious, but if you need elaboration, just ask.)
Bonus) Biologists keep changing the “scientific facts” and contradict themselves all the time.
Comments (23)
hey, i read it all.
i have nothing to say though, i did read it all though, promise. (:!!!
I actually have an entry on the way where I adress the flaws of evolutionism at every stage. You really should elaborate on each one rather than saying ‘ask for elaboration.’ You did a good job refuting cosmological evolutionism, but concerning biological evolutionism you ought to refine your argument a bit. Sometimes the chromosome numbers do change, there are mutations where chromosomes are lost, and others where chromosomes are gained. The latter is called polyploidy. The weakness of mutations however, is that they never constitute an increase in genetic information. Mutations for the most part exist as scramblings of the genetic code, in which the order of a specific segment is lost, reversed, or garbled. In those cases the information formerly contained in that segment is lost, which amounts to a less viable organism overall. In the case of polyploidy, it is an abnormal duplication of existing genetic material, and still, no new information is added. The problem with lay people who susbscribe to evolutionism is that they do not realize there is a difference between genetic material and genetic information. Professional geneticists who subscribe to evolutionism are aware of this, and they are for the most part a rather woefull bunch because they realize that they have no emperical data to substantiate their belief that a natural mechanism exists for the addition of new genetic information. They look at all the useless mutations that we see in the present, and assume, “well… these are all fairly useless but given billions of years some might actually be productive. We weren’t there and we didn’t see it, but you never know…” To which I say, “that’s right, you don’t know.” The blame for the perpetuation of evolutionism lies more with journalists and governments rather than actual scientists. They know they don’t have the proof but they take it on faith. Finding life on Mars would not prove evolutionism anyways, because evidence exists in the present and only a study of the past can prove origins. Also, they are starting to build cells in laboratories. I’m not talking about that Miller-Urey bullcrap, I’m talking more about building things like you might build a car. Of course even if they were to create a fully sentient being (right now theyre just working on cells), that in no way proves evolutionism. If anything it proves that it takes intelligence to create life.
this is from the previous post:
definitely. i apologize for my tendency to get wordy and i will try to lessen the confusion by addressing the points separately in a bulleted format.
1.) i wll admit that the protest against christian proselytizing has become more vocal recently. however, i believe it’s a sign that the concentration of power is starting to “even out,” and the “moral majority” no longer has a monopoly over what is happening on capitol hill. the banning of prayer that you mention doesn’t only apply to christians. it applies to all religious groups. the last issue that i can remember actually implicating the issue of prayer in the public arena involved chrisitans protesting AGAINST a hindu’s right to open for the senate (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/prayer-protesters-arrested-in-senate-2007-07-13.html).
2.) you’re right when you say that most wars were probably fought for a reason other than religion (though the most violent are sometimes attributed to those involving issues of religion). how many wars were fought specifically on behalf of atheism? the answer is actually none.
3.) i can’t find ONE atheist who believes gay marriage is wrong. please tell me what’s your evidence for this claim.
4.) a whale may have a tale the size of a cedar tree’s trunk. however, if dinosaurs were alive then, how come we don’t find any today? did god simply forget to make a place for them on the ark? also, those cavities in those animals skulls MAY be sound resonators/amplifiers. i am not a biologist so i can’t verify this, but the explanation is entirely plausible. however, i don’t see how they could be a fire-creation apparatus. (again, if these creatures were alive then, why can’t we see them now?)
5.) the ceolacanth you mention is a perfect example of prehistoric life (a friend of mine did a report on it in high school). the ceolacanth specimen we found was located in a deep body of water, while fossils suggest that ceolacanths in the devonian and cretaceous periods most likely lived in shallower environments. these deep environments make it particularly hard to collect viable fossil specimens. however, the fact that the ceolacanth exists today doesn’t mean that your idea of a young age earth has strong evidence. take the cockroach and the mosquito for example. it is believed that they haven’t changed much since the time of the dinosaurs. it simply shows that they are extremely resilient creatures, and we actually could probably still learn a thing or two from them.
6.) i agree with you that the idea of two completely identitical organisms evolving in tandem is rather vacuous. it’s difficult enough to have genetics randomly form a beneficial trait in ONE organism. however, it only takes the propagation of that ONE beneficial gene in the population to eventually make the trait a dominant one. take the artificial breeding of dogs for example. the wide variety of dog breeds we have today are the exact result of cultivating certain traits through breeding. i don’t think you can say that all dogs look alike (i think some look so different as to suggest they are no longer of the same species anymore).
7.) as an offshoot of the previous point, the reason we don’t see millions of fish evolving in salamanders today (i’m not even sure they can be so easily linked) is that they have already filled in the specific niche in the environment, making it hard for any newcomers to spread their genetic information. it’s the same reason we don’t see life spontaneously generating as scientists propose it did in the distant past. the environment no longer supports the survival of simple life (not in the same context as simple bacteria we have today, which is very likely very complex to early lifeforms.)
8.) we don’t expect every species to go extent to be preserved through fossilization. these numbers seem to be generated based on plausible projections of what we see today with the rates of species creation/destruction. that’s why we don’t have these fossils. also, you are right when you say there are gaps in the evolutionary line. however, you NEVER find the more complex organisms in a much earlier geologic strata; this suggests that things grow increasingly complex as time continues (in complete agreement with evolutionary theory). remember, becoming extinct is not the same as being fossilized. i think that’s where you may have mixed the definitions up.
9.) not every scientist agrees that a meteor is what killed off the dinosaurs. some propose some type of pandemic. i don’t see how this necessarily bolsters your case against evolution. just because a meteor hit the earth does not mean that it was the necessary cause of their extinction. also, extinctions would actually suggest an evolutionary worldview considering extinction allows new creatures to establish themselves in niches that used to be occupied.
10.) i’ve heard the argument against evolution using the 2nd law of thermodynamics: closed systems are subject to entropy. however, the people who use this argument forget that earth is not a closed system. we receive energy from the sun, which means that we are not closed system. i believe that’s sufficient to argue that claim.
11.) the point about bird beaks, despite how you may word it, is still microevolution. granted, the argument that you cite is a powerful one, and one that still needs to be addressed. there are many people who believe that microevolution does not serve as a legitimate justification for macroevolution, but in my mind (and this is only in my mind) i am not particularly bothered by the idea that the accumulation of minute changes of the genome over eons to create new species. apparently, not many other scientists are either (i’ve cited this in earlier posts).
12.) by saying that parts of the bible are meant to be taken allegorical due to its language, you further undermine your case that earth is less than 10,000 years old. you seem to have been trying to prove a young earth all this time, but your admittance that some parts are metaphorical poetry (particularly the genesis story) necessarily renders your arguments against the scientific evidence invalid. if it really is the case that genesis is meant to be taken as poetry, why are you even arguing against evolution? evolutionary theory, in that sense, wouldn’t even impinge on your ability to believe in the moral validity of the bible.
13.) i look forward to hearing your justifications for these apparent biblical contradictions.
after reading this post, i find the title to be intentionally misleading. at best, you are making a case, which i have clearly demonstrated IS refutable.
i addressed many of these issues in the previous comment. however, there are some points that i feel deserve special recognition.
5.) a design needs a designer: who designed the designer?
6.) the big bang justifies some higher being: the big bang doesn’t invalidate a notion of god. in fact, like you suggested earlier, many scientists believe in some form of deism. however, i think it should be mentioned very few of them adhere to any of the judeo-christian faiths.
11.) creatures can’t change their chromosome count: if they copulate with another species, this is actually entirely possible. look up the “hinny,” a cross between a male horse and a female donkey. granted, this creature is sterile and unable to create viable germ cells, but this invalidates your idea that creatures with new chromosome counts cannot be formed.
12.) scientists don’t question the origin of matter: actually, they do. they just don’t have enough evidence to justify any unified, empirically verifiable theory (yet).
14.) mars has no life: we haven’t even explored the entire planet. i think it’s irresponsible of you to suggest that our lack of knowledge somehow validates your claim. at best, we don’t know whether it has life or not (scientists are excited to examine what appears to be ice on the surface). i think it is prudent for BOTH sides to withhold judgment.
* scientists keep contradicting themselves: i don’t know how many times i need to say it. THIS IS WHAT SCIENCE IS. it is a constant debate with sides each saying the other is wrong, and it is constantly improving (changing) its ideas. despite how you depict it, science is not static and it is not immutable (as say fundamentalist religion is). for all i know, evolutionary theory may be proven wrong and replaced by a better theory. HOWEVER, the theory of evolution provides a better, more accurate worldview than that provided by fundamentalist christianity.
also, i want further explanations for ALL the points for which you had more information. i don’t see how they could work, so i need you to justify your points.
please read the following, i think it actually explains things with an intellectual clarity much greater than my own: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
@jmsnooks - science never purported that it had all the answers (despite what the general layman might think). however, i find it equally presumptuous of religion to assert that it HAS the answers. it obviously does not have the answers to the technical questions of our world and i would again like to emphasize that it doesn’t seem to have the answers to the biological questions of our world.
@jmsnooks -
Thanks for the info!
@kayleeq -
So here you are, a non-believer, and now you have proof that evolution isn’t true, and you have nothing to say? Is that stubbornness, or is it that I just blew your mind?
@easalien -
You may find it presumptuous, except that you have to remember that the purpose of religion(s) is not just to give a set of moral guidelines, but also to establish a paradigm. If a religion doesn’t offer any of those answers then it is a pretty worthless religion. Science is emperical, and evidence exists in the present, therefore any extrapolations about the past are beyond science. If you are trying to stretch science to offer explanations beyond what emperical studies can verify then you are elevating (or perhaps lowering?) science to the level of a religion. At that point you no longer have a clear definition for what constitutes science and you are muddling into philosophy and faith.
Just as a side note, if I were an evolutionist I would not predicate any pro-evolution arguments on the alleged extinction of dinosaurs. First of all, dinosaurs occupied a wide range of trophic levels so there could not have been any type of natural catastrophe that would have obliterated them all while allowing other things to live. Beliefs about the full extinction of all dinosaurs were made popular with the discovery of Dinosaur bones in Europe during the 1800′s (although it could have been earlier than that). I think that the conclusion is too general considering how narrow the evidence upon which it was based. Aside from the plesiosaur sightings in various parts of the world, there are sightings of terrestrial dinosaurs as well in the more tropical parts of the world. Cryptozoology is not a field of study on which Christians have the monopoly, a great many evolutionists also travel around the world chasing living dinosaurs. I recommend you read “A Living Dinosaur: In Search of Mokele-Mbembe” which deals with the topic of living dinosaurs and was written by scientists who believe in evolution and write from that perspective. To predicate pro-evolution arguments on the alleged extinction of all dinosaurs is as foolish as the Christians who predicate arguments for special creation on the assumption that there is no life on other planets anywhere in the universe.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
no problem
@jmsnooks - i again have to disagree with some of your claims. you seem to imply that it is beyond the realm of science to utilize conjecture, when in fact, that’s all theories are. they are well-informed conjectures. they establish connections between pieces of empirical evidence, and for the time being, evolution as guided by natural selection seems to be the most fitting mechanism to explain our world. i don’t know how many times i have to say it: evolution is still open to falsification. religion is not subject to this because its core relies on belief without evidence. religion exists in an entirely different realm. they don’t play by the same rules. therefore, i don’t think they (religion and science) should be used to mutually validate or invalidate each other.
you’re right that it would be foolish to predicate an argument for evolution on extinction. however, this was not my intention (i may have worded things badly). rather, i was hoping to point out how extinctions could provide an opportunity for natural selection to “do its thing.” i was simply trying to show how extinctions could fit into an evolutionary worldview.
also, the idea that modern dinosaurs could be living today doesn’t change a thing. as i’ve stated before, mosquitoes and cockroaches are believed to have remained relatively unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs. however, i again feel the need to clarify something you’ve assumed. the fact is that there are modern dinosaurs. however, these modern dinosaurs are not the dinosaurs of the past that we’re referring to. where are the t. rex’s? where are the herds of triceratops? and what is the evidence of these sightings? hearsay? where are the bodies? in this argument, you’re ironically (hypocritically i believe) trying to employ a case that relies precisely on conjecture and not on empirical evidence.
out of curiosity, did you read through the website i presented you?
Well heck, Chris, i learned something(!) : Not new facts, but new logical connections of facts. That hasn’t happened on Xanga in, whoah, a long time. #4 is it. Yes, i’m sure someone could come up with a refutation, but like you pointed out elsewhere, that refutation can be refuted, and so forth.
Well, i doubt you’ll get your elaboration request, no matter how much we don’t see how one of them applies. That’s because, we are a bunch of people, each sure that he himself or she herself is the one worth reading in many cases. If i had to pick one for elaboration, i would pick #15. So, i guess i’ll do that. I pick #15.
I have something to say about your number 11. There is no scientific evidence that a species
can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. Man could not evolve from a
monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If
an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some
deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to
the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.
While I agree that man is not evovled from the monkey, this statement is false. People with down syndrome are able to reproduce, and have an over 50% chance of passing on their disability.
@tamathabamatha -
I don’t know if you’re an atheist or what–you weren’t hostile, so I’m thinking not–but thanks for KINDLY pointing this out, even though I’m not sure you’re right. People with Down’s Syndrome, they still have the right number of chromosomes, yes?
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko - No I am not atheist
Proud Christian with some unconventional beliefs. And I did get it mixed up, down’s syndrome is a defect of a chromosome (21st, more specifically, when the 21st chromosome is reproduced 3 times.), not that it is missing altogether. However, when the 23rd chromosome is missing (or an extra chromosome is in place), certain defects can occur such as cystic fibrosis. The condition of a chromosome missing is called mosaicism. You can also have an extra piece of a chromosome, these “changes” in the natural order are called translocations. Sorry for the misinformation, I’m really a little embarrassed about it, as I taught special education for a while.
@tamathabamatha -
Hmm…unconventional beliefs? Like what?
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko - For instance the big bang. It is the most scientifically reasonable explanation, and I believe I know how nothingness turned into something…ness. God said BANG! According to Genesis, the earth is only what, like 4,000 years old. My explanation for that is we didn’t tell time the same way back then (that’s also my explanation for everyone living 800+ years). So the earth really is closer to a few billion years old. The Bible was dictated by God, but it was written by a bunch of common men, and then translated I don’t even know how many times. I think you have to take things like dates in the bible with a grain of salt. It’s like playing that telephone game. When information gets from point A to point Z, it’s distorted. The few people I work with (I teach at a Christian Academy) who I have shared my views with were absolutely appalled, so I tend to keep them to myself. I couldn’t resist responding here though.
@tamathabamatha -
Well, I learned at my Catholic high school (I’m not Catholic), that Christians are allowed to believe in evolution, no problem. As long as they believe God put it into place. So I don’t disbelieve in evolution because I’m not allowed to. I disbelieve in it because it’s constantly being taken apart and aspects of it are being disproven left and right. You’re right that the only way the Big Bang could have happened is if God–or SOME higher being–took the nothingness and made something out of it, because mere science cannot do that.
But as far as time being different in the Bible–we discussed that at my school, and if you look at the genealogy of all the people and stuff, it shows that people LITERALLY lived to 600 and 900 years old.
And science actually suggests the opposite of what atheists tell us. Science suggests an earth under 10,000 years old. I can explain if you want. I mean, it doesn’t matter, if you believe in God, but if you’re curious about doing some extra learning and knowing how it ACTUALLY happened…let me know.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko - Yes please do tell me. In my science class we learned that the milky way is aoubt 12 billion years old, and that planets & sun in it are just a few billion years younger. I’m always open to new ideas and learning new things, I think it’s the only way for us to really grow as people.
@tamathabamatha -
Here’s a quick and really easy one that I don’t have to look up (busy right now): The Earth is mostly made of granite. Granite forms almost instantaneously.
I’ve always been taught that the center of the earth is made up of a nickel and iron alloy. The next layer (layers) being made of silicon, iron, agnesium, aluminum, oxygen, and various other minerals. The crust is on top that, made mostly of oxygen, silicon,aluminum, iron, sodium, calcium, potassium, and magnesium. The surface is obviously made of mostly water, and then the atmosphere is various gases.
Well, now they teach that much of the earth is granite. Not all of it, of course, but much of it. Do you want me to give you another piece of hard evidence for a young earth since this one doesn’t do it for you?
@easalien -
Jehovah has always existed.
What did got do forever then, right?
I don’t know. LOL
@Lucksfalse -
Ooops I miss spelled god.
I am still not the best at typing:
Jehovah has always existed.
What did god do forever then, right?
I don’t know. LOL