Science Disproves Evolution

[xfrodobagginsx]

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

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

oh geez. This is gonna get old in a hurry.
I'll just jump on board real quick and say that's bullshit and move on.

That's bullshit.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

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

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences15.html#wp1603091

 

[LesDesirable]

Your second set of proofs, those of the moon, meteorites, and Mars, are not proofs of anything except that we did not find life on those places. That in no way proves that life has not happened anywhere else in the universe.

Your first three proofs are better thought out, but are certainly not scientific and do not prove that God created the earth and all life.

What is also mathematically unlikely is that God would speak almost hourly for the first two thousand years, then shut up forever, letting people stray into thousands of evils that are absolutely proscribed in his gospels.


If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not evolve.

from page 2 of your link: Has the author ever heard of Old English, Gaelic, or any of the other hundreds of now dead languages that slowly changed into the current usages.

Your "science" begins to stink of flat-earth quality science with that kind of statement.

 

[suurfer]

Fascinating stuff, xfrodo..
Could you please provide the links too?


This was really good too:

This was an interesting talk.
Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
An atheist Philosopher.
A jewish Mathematician.
A white Biologist.
They talk about Marxism being shit, beauty not being subjective, and observations pointing to intelligent design. Plus lots of other stuff.

We're headed into an ethical/moral enlightenment for Atheists. God, I can barely wait.

^^
Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

If the Universe is indeed infinite, the best way of finding other lifeforms would be to look in the last place first.

 

[LesDesirable]

If the Universe is indeed infinite, the best way of finding other lifeforms would be to look in the last place first.

Fortunately, it is not infinite. It is only slightly over 12000 light years in diameter, entered on the earth (or possibly on our sun (the only sun, all other stars being mere lights in the sky)). We should be able to build a telescope that lets us see the infinite void beyond the slowly expanding godsphere and that will prove earth central god theory for all time.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Your second set of proofs, those of the moon, meteorites, and Mars, are not proofs of anything except that we did not find life on those places. That in no way proves that life has not happened anywhere else in the universe.

Your first three proofs are better thought out, but are certainly not scientific and do not prove that God created the earth and all life.

What is also mathematically unlikely is that God would speak almost hourly for the first two thousand years, then shut up forever, letting people stray into thousands of evils that are absolutely proscribed in his gospels.


If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not evolve.

from page 2 of your link: Has the author ever heard of Old English, Gaelic, or any of the other hundreds of now dead languages that slowly changed into the current usages.

Your "science" begins to stink of flat-earth quality science with that kind of statement.

Yeah I understand your point. I do know that language certainly does evolve as you stated, Anglo-Frisian is the language that English evolved from, however, it can only explain it to a certain point. I believe that the languages came about at the Tower of Babel.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

All living things (down to even a single-celled organism) are highly complex and organized—each component in its proper place and functioning according to its instructions to keep the organism going. They don’t just “happen” in nature—the notion of spontaneous generation was long ago and often disproven [Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and Virchow (1858)], establishing the Law of Biogenesis, which remains confirmed in that man has never observed life coming from anything but life itself, which is not observed to exist at all without all of the above described factors in place in some form.

On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels.

Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself.

To so erroneously equate mere passive “order” of molecules as they enter a state of energy equilibrium (e.g., the formation of crystals) with a spontaneous, self-induced increase in “organized complexity” (as demanded by evolutionary theory for both the beginning and development of life—and as prohibited by the 2nd law), is to truly misunderstand the 2nd law AND evolution. This seems to be exactly what Isaak has done.

Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) does recognize the difference, however, having described it this way:
“‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’” [Jeffrey S. Wicken, “The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference, even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life:

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.” [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolas and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:

“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.” [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, “The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories,” Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]

Isaak asks, “If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?” By now it should be clear to any objective reader that Isaak’s logic is faulty:
his assumption that “order from disorder” is “ubiquitous in nature” is an error

life’s “order” (better described as “organized complexity”) is possible only because of life’s inherent information and energy conversion mechanisms

the “order” found in non-living natural structures is not simply due to an unaided decrease in entropy, but to a decrease in molecular or atomic energy level, due to external factors (usually temperature and the existing molecular structure of the elements involved).

https://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php

 

[carlos1of2inher]

Excellent come back

oh geez. This is gonna get old in a hurry.
I'll just jump on board real quick and say that's bullshit and move on.

That's bullshit.

What a powerful counter argument. It must have taken hours to do that research.

 

[rae121452]

i think bb disproves evolution. he's still an ape.

 

[carlos1of2inher]

The last place...

If the Universe is indeed infinite, the best way of finding other lifeforms would be to look in the last place first.

I think the last place in our solar system where I would expect to find life would be Uranus. So, should we check there first?

 

[rae121452]

there's definitely life there. the kwell bills are astronomical.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

Yeah. The evolutionists always lose me right where they say 10 quad trillion things come together and then poof- life.

 

[thør]

God put those fossils in the rock to test your faith.

 

[Kantarii]

i think bb disproves evolution. he's still an ape.

How does science explain your monkey ass?

 

[PaxNurgle]

oh geez. This is gonna get old in a hurry.
I'll just jump on board real quick and say that's bullshit and move on.

That's bullshit.

Xfrodobaggins is nothing if not persistant. Even if everyone just ignores him, you can count on him bumping this thread each and every day for the next 831 years. Because that's what he does.

 

[Kantarii]

Xfrodobaggins is nothing if not persistant. Even if everyone just ignores him, you can count on him bumping this thread each and every day for the next 831 years. Because that's what he does.

Ain’t that the truth, sometimes with nothing more than emojis

 

[phrodeau]

Funny how people want to credit God for all the wonders of the world, but when there’s something nasty, that’s a demon’s fault.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

Funny how people want to credit God for all the wonders of the world, but when there’s something nasty, that’s a demon’s fault.

I doubt you'd find many here who credit God for anything. It's all just a big, cosmic joke.

 

[LupusDei]

God created the world two hours ago. Even this thread was already posted.

 

[icanhelp1]

Fortunately, it is not infinite. It is only slightly over 12000 light years in diameter, entered on the earth (or possibly on our sun (the only sun, all other stars being mere lights in the sky)). We should be able to build a telescope that lets us see the infinite void beyond the slowly expanding godsphere and that will prove earth central god theory for all time.

That's our Galaxy.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules (a). Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. So, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved (b).

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings (c)).

Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language (d).

Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with Braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used (e).

a. G. F. Marcus et al., “Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants,” Science, Vol. 283, 1 January 1999, pp. 77–80.

b. Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250–271.

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.

c. “Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward.” H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?” Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.

“...human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.” Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

d. “No languageless community has ever been found.” Jean Aitchison, The Atlas of Languages (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996), p. 10.

“There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [in language development between apes and man] are bridgeable.” Chomsky, p. 60.

e. “...[concerning imitation, not language] only humans can lose one modality (e.g., hearing) and make up for this deficit by communicating with complete competence in a different modality (i.e., signing).” Marc D. Hauser et al., “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science, Vol. 298, 22 November 2002, p. 1575.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences16.html#wp1008968

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Although several persons have cited numerous references from the scientific literature purporting to show that the problem of irreducible complexity I pointed out in Darwin’s Black Box is being seriously addressed, the references show no such thing. Invariably the cited papers or books either deal with non-irreducibly complex biochemical systems, or do not deal with them in enough detail for critical evaluation. I strongly emphasize, however, that I do not prefer it that way. I would sincerely welcome much more serious, sustained research in the area of irreducible complexity. I fully expect such research would heighten awareness of the difficulties of Darwinian evolution.



Irreducible Complexity And The Evolutionary Literature

https://www.trueorigin.org/behe04.php

 

[oggbashan]

More scientific sounding bull shit that does not address the major proofs than have validated Darwin for nearly two hundred years of genuine scientific endeavour. It is aimed at people who believe any nonsense because it fits their preconceptions.