Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution

Evolution flunks the science test

Irreducible complexity——Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

Instantaneous complexity——Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible——Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.


SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28

[Ahso!]

If I show you evidence to disprove anything here, will you believe it?

[littleCJelkton]

the proofs of god cant be disproven we went through this already and last I saw it ended with a banana and Monty Python

[M.A.S]

There's no doubt, evolution can't be real.

[littleCJelkton]

I forgot to add a Pointed Stick and Gun

[Saint_]

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution

So what's your theory? We all just "popped" into existence a few thousand years ago? Earth was a barren rock for millions of years until we got here?

Dr. Spencer Wells has already proven without a doubt where the current version of humans originated through DNA tracking. Or do you dispute the existence of DNA too?

https://genographic.nationalgeograph.../en/atlas.html

What's funny to me is that, although Evolution is as easy to see and as certain as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there are still people that disbelieve it! I don't know why I'm amazed because people insisted the EARTH WAS FLAT for centuries after Columbus and others proved it wasn't.

Here's a compelling article on why Pahu is so afraid...

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories.

Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence. As applied to our own species, Homo sapiens, it can seem more threatening still. Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system." The late Srila Prabhupada, of the Hare Krishna movement, explained that God created "the 8,400,000 species of life from the very beginning," in order to establish multiple tiers of reincarnation for rising souls. Although souls ascend, the species themselves don't change, he insisted, dismissing "Darwin's nonsensical theory."

Other people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.

Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin—that is, divine initiative to get things started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.) Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.

The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most.

[K.Snyder]

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution

Evolution flunks the science test

Irreducible complexity——Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

Instantaneous complexity——Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible——Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.


SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28

Evolution is an observation not an invention. Suggesting the latter places religious connotations behind future which is not only mathematically incorrect but incredibly ignorant.

Science is nothing more than theories that best fit the mathematical equations produced by divination, which is a word best used in the context of "evolution", a word you've blatantly murdered. You're comparing like causes against you're own personal belief system which no doubt sets you up to be correct, but sadly your premise is derived from lala land

[Richard Bell]

The OP is nothing but a few statements. No evidence, citations or research, no matter how spurious, is offered.

FAIL

[Saint_]

Isn't it absolutely fascinating that this guy's link states that "An extremely narrow range of conditions exists where life can exist, stars can form, and planets can revolve and orbit around the sun."

So these guys believe the stars can form, and that the Earth orbits the Sun, but not that life can evolve. That's like believing that cars can drive, but gasoline doesn't exist. LOL!

[Pahu]

Extraterrestrial Life?


No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?”
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Is There Life in Outer Space?


Mars Lander

Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.

a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,” Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 12.   Extraterrestrial Life?