Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

originally posted by: wonderworld
This is just one of many ways to see the truth without using the Bible. This one is not a religious thread, unless you personally want to apply it. This is scientific data only. I had to crop some of this to fit but you can see the entire article on the links below.

Darwin was wrong. It’s plain, yet simple to understand. Those who do not have an open mind to evaluate these facts will have a hard time understanding. We must take a step back and analyze what we know to date and properly view such data. This naturally, is liable to drive evolutionary biologists into a rage. Both sides need to evaluate the scientific facts, beyond theories; regardless of what you believe to be factual. It’s known to many that Darwin, on his deathbed recanted his belief in Evolution. Check it out if you don’t believe it.

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the BibleThere are logical reasons apart from Scripture's direct testimony to reject the theory of evolution and accept creation and a Creator.

Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.
What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally— you !
In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the "molecules to man" theory—we'll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

www.ucg.org...

Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's
Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False, and Impossible

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

The following link does say Bible; however the scientific proof is what I show. Not the Biblical perspective.

www.biblelife.org...

I read this and still don't understand how you proved evolution is false. Let's leave out the "even without the bible" because the Bible has no scientific truth in it whatsoever.

a reply to: peter vlar

Well, I'll certainly put less stock in what I see on the history channel. Yes, it did strike me as odd. I also figure if they were real the... Well "they" would have those bones locked up so tight noone would know about them, not be allowing them to air on national television or it would be headline news. So yah, I think I'm with you on the skulls, sorry servantofthelamb!
Still believe in ancient aliens, but these....
Thank you for the info!
Sara

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It actually already started to happen with the different races around the world, but since we are so interconnected these days, we've pretty much nipped that evolutionary path in the bud

This is something I'm not fully clear about - maybe you could shed some light on it without me having to pore through a bunch of scientific research that I have very little training in understanding. I was of the understanding that there is greater variety at the genetic level among African populations than, say, between Europeans and Asians. So, my questions:

1). Does that mean there is greater variation amongst negroids than between monogoloids and caucasoids?
2). If this is the case, how does less genetic variation show evolution?

It could just be me questions are based on not fully understanding what I'm asking.

originally posted by: scorpio84


This is something I'm not fully clear about - maybe you could shed some light on it without me having to pore through a bunch of scientific research that I have very little training in understanding. I was of the understanding that there is greater variety at the genetic level among African populations than, say, between Europeans and Asians. So, my questions:

1). Does that mean there is greater variation amongst negroids than between monogoloids and caucasoids?

The greater degree of genetic variation is specific to Sub Saharan African populations, more specifically the Knoi San people. This is because they were fairly well isolated and this insulated them from the bulk of European Colonialism in the 18th through 20th centuries.

2). If this is the case, how does less genetic variation show evolution?

It shows the effects of genetic admixture between populations and gives us another variable to help understand instances of genetic bottlenecks. One of the biggest that has had a huge effect on not just Homo Sapiems Sapiens, but our cousins who we one shared the Earth with such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, Homo Erectus and Homo Floresiensis. This even took place approximately 70,000 years ago and is closely linked with an eruption of Mt. Toba in Indonesia. This event reduced HSS populations to less than 1000 breeding pair worldwide and was one of the final nails in the coffin for people like Neanderthal and Denisovan as separate, independent species of humans.

Today, nearly all Eurasians and North Africans have some Neanderthal genetics and Melanesian and Aboriginal populations have Denisovan genetics as a result of admixture between 40 & 60 thousand years ago. The Khoi San do have some limited HN admixture but it is more recent and seems to be from a back migration out of Europe and back to Africa roughly 3000 years ago. So they didn't have direct admixture events but received some of the genetics from Europeans who went back to Africa. It's a much smaller percentage and is present in a lower percent of the population than you would see in Europe but there is some there.

It could just be me questions are based on not fully understanding what I'm asking.

This is a great example of there being no such thing as a bad or dumb question. There's nothing wrong with wanting to understand something that you may not be overly familiar with.

originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: scorpio84

peter vlar: This is a great example of there being no such thing as a bad or dumb question. There's nothing wrong with wanting to understand something that you may not be overly familiar with.

This is true; as God, apparently is not available to answer those questions.

originally posted by: NaughtyLibrarian
a reply to: madenusa

I believe in God. Believing in God has nothing to do with believing in evolution. They can coexist. Whereas evolution is a proven scientific and natural process, spirituality is something you can know only for yourself.
So the question becomes were humans as we know them today created in this way?
I don't ENTIRELY disagree with what your saying, but its way over explained and doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Does what your saying here mean that you do believe in evolution, just that God set it in motion and continues to control things with the holy spirit? Or what?

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors.
This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

a reply to: madenusa

Does the theory of gravity mean gravity may be untrue?.

a reply to: boymonkey74Whereas evolution is a proven scientific and natural process,posted by: NaughtyLibrarian its only a theory not proven scientific

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: madenusa

Does the theory of gravity mean gravity may be untrue?.

you cant see it, smell it, or taste gravity your theory of gravity is closer than trying to develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. if we revolved Eskimos would have fur to keep warm.
Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment.

originally posted by: madenusa


The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors.

Completely untrue. Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws have different functions. There isn't some sort of hierarchy where laws supersede theories in their level of authority. Theories do not become laws suddenly when a magic threshold of evidentiary data is reached. In simplest terms, Theories describe how and Laws describe why something happens, usually mathematically.

While we're on the topic, perhaps you could describe what the errors are in Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?

This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

Again, this statement is entirely untrue. I'm not sure where the error originated but you are very much mistaken on the differences between sea and theories in science. Not only is Evolution an actual fact( the theory serves to describe how evolution works) , but it's probably the most well evidenced theory in the history of science. But please feel free to describe the actual issues with the science as opposed to issuing blanket statements.

originally posted by: madenusa
Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment.

Are you trolling or do you actually believe this to be true?

a reply to: peter vlarScientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form.
The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell.
The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous.
The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell.
In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

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........
The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals, and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally towards disorder or chaos.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: madenusa
Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment.

Are you trolling or do you actually believe this to be true?

humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black
Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.
No sign of natural selection based on the environment.

a reply to: madenusa

Complete non sequitur. What you are referring to is a hypothesis called Abiogenesis. It's not a part of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis They are completely seperate fields of study conducted by scientists working in very different disciplines. Much like how you misunderstand the distinction between. Scientific Theory and a Law, you are conflating two very seperate fields of inquiry and then attempting to debunk a theory by pointing out issues with a tangentially related hypothesis. Some serious stretching going on here.

You also make more blanket statements and don't support them with anything. Life has been going extinct for billions of years on Earth. That fact doesn't negate evolution in the least. Please provide citations supporting your assertions that genes are becoming defective and nothing is evolving. Also, your final sentence is 180 degrees away from the truth. That's not how entropy works.

Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period.
The fossil record shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs?
They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA.
The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species.
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.

originally posted by: madenusa
Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period.
The fossil record shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs?
They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

They were an *insert* specie (not supposed to evolve) for the purpose of diagnosing vegetation consumption vs body weight; stress the planet and the specie then destroy the experiment by meteorite. Humans may take something from this as a de-facto prior warning (you are not sitting at the controls).

Evolution is a theory developed by Charles Darwin's grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born.
Before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

The educational system teaches children not to think.
Any student who uses logic and solid scientific evidence to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into submission.
The students who submit become non-thinking robots who dare not question the dogma presented.

a reply to: vethumanbeing...............agree 100% we are not setting at the controls
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing