Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible
Oct 01, †Ј 1. The human body systems prove evolution wrong. There are 10 interdependent systems that exist. All of which cannot work unless the other 9 are already functioning. Jul 23, †Ј Here are a few ways (by no means complete) to 'prove' evolution wrong: 1. Provide an explanation and evidence of how all life does NOT show a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication.
I don't understand why is it that Christians are mesmerized by evolution? Of course you know that denying evolution won't make your superstitions god any less imaginary, so what's the fascination? Evolution is irrelevant to atheists, if evolution were not true, it would have zero effect on the feasibility of various how to prove evolution wrong fabricated gods.
The theory of evolution is backed by mountains of corroborating falsifiable evidence from dozens of disciplines eovlution using the scientific method and published in tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers by tens of thousands of scientists.
It is one of the strongest theories in science. I don't discount a 'creation' theory; but such a theory doesn't exist, in fact a 'creation hypothesis' hasn't even been formulated using the scientific method. What apologists have presented over a very long period of time is a large number of vague, often false and contradictory claims, presented as propaganda, not science. Why do this if your claims have nothing to hide? The theory of evolution has zero competition. I would be interested in reading your take on this hod.
Maybe compile all the evidence into one post that refutes the points made in this one and others? It is a known fact that Creationism is the foundation of Science and evidence only supports Intelligent Design. Salvation Daily Devotion About. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called science.
To be "willingly ignorant" implies that a concept is known but that it is rejected and ignored without serious consideration. They know of the how to prove evolution wrong flood, but they refuse to open-mindedly investigate the evidence for it. See my articles on global flood evidence here and here.
Scientific Facts disproving Charles Darwin's. Theory of Evolution. The human body systems prove evolution wrong. There are 10 interdependent systems that exist. All of which cannot work unless the other 9 are already functioning. So which ones evolved first and why and in what order? And how would any evopution them function or even exist until the others evolved? No one has ever observed evolution, there are no transitional fossils at all, see my article on the missing transitional fossils here.
Evolution either has to be drawn, illustrated, or animated, which means evolution is only true in a virtual world, or someone's imagination. In a global flood, the how to prove evolution wrong of aquatic life what is pro forma payment not have to reach the surface of the water what are english style short ribs get air.
They would be expected to get buried in the same order level in the water in which they lived - which is exactly what we observe. It's funny how evolution supposedly evolved aquatic life in the exact same order the flood would have buried it Why do evolutionists have a population problem?
Well, let us start in the beginning with one male and one female, and assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every years. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative.
In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so. After 32 hod, which is only 4, years, the world population would have reached almost 8. This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam evplution Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6, years.
Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. They refuse to even discuss this subject. But the evidence is there and it raises many questions evolutionists do not want to address. All because this evidence destroys their worldview.
The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. 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 how to prove evolution wrong. The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos.
Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics, which has never been proven wrong. The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers foryears during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10, years ago.
Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people should discover that plants grow from seeds. According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed foryears before beginning to make written records about 4, to 5, years ago.
Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful what to do on the garden route paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history?
Evolutionists say prkve Homo sapiens existed for at leastyears before agriculture began, when the world population was roughly between one and ten million. All that time they how to prove evolution wrong burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried provs least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than how to use android box, years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around and certainly the buried artifacts.
Yet only a few thousand have been found See my article on, Top 20 Questions to Ask an Evolutionist, here. See my article on, Where are the transitional fossils for evolution?
Facebook Twitter. Newer Newer Post. Older Older Post. Schwarz Kat 16 September at Musing Millennial 5 April evolktion Wvolution 12 March at Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. Search Our Website. Popular Posts. Could Pope Francis be the False Prophet? God and Mathematics. Latest Video. Is the Bible reliable?
Follow by Email. Total Pageviews. Psalm The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Romans For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
How to prove evolution wrong Author. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, the One who saved me, and my goal is to spread ecolution gospel evoljtion all the evidence for Christianity! Read more Created by Christian Evidence.
Proof Evolution Is False
Aug 04, †Ј Lamarck's theory on evolution was wrong because organisms pass down traits through predetermined genetic information, not based on environmental adaptations during their lifetime. Lamarck proposed that if an organism used a certain muscle differently, like a giraffe having to consistently reach up higher on a tree for leaves, the offspring. For more than a century Christians have looked for the scientific silver bullet that would destroy Darwinian evolution and prove biblical creation to be true. In-Depth Article. 12 Days of Evolutionary Deception. Jan. 14, from Answers in Depth.
Looking for proof evolution is false? This is also available as a free eBook. If you prefer the eBook version, click here to download. This book presents proof evolution is false. Specifically, it shows that naturalistic evolution is an inadequate explanation for the origin of 1 the universe, 2 life and 3 human life and that the cause of these three areas must be intelligent.
Proof: Inductive reasoning uses an evidence-based approach for discovering truth. Like all scientific arguments, induction cannot prove something to be true absolutely but only to a certain degree of probability.
It will be concluded using abduction inferring a certain explanation is more credible than competing explanations that it is more plausible to assert an intelligent cause for origins. Evolution: This book addresses three types of naturalistic evolution: cosmic, chemical and biological evolution.
Cosmic evolution is the origin of matter from non-matter, chemical evolution is the origin of living matter from non-living matter and biological evolution is the origin of higher life forms from lower life forms. When discussing origins, a distinction between operation and origin science must be acknowledged. Empirical science or operation science is an investigation into how things operate in the present.
It is concerned with present, regular, observable and repeatable events. Hypotheses can be constructed and then tested through further experimentation and observation. Forensic science or origin science deals with things that are no longer occurring in the present. It is an attempt to explain how events were caused in the past, events that are unrepeatable and therefore cannot be observed.
It is a speculative. Past events must be reconstructed and conclusions about its cause must be drawn by viewing the evidence that remains. The principle of causality states that every event has an adequate cause. The principle of uniformity states that certain causes tend to produce the same kind of events or uniform experience.
For example, water flowing over rocks tends to round the edges of the rock, wind blowing on water tends to produce waves, and so forth. There are two types of causes: natural and intelligent.
Many people can recognize the difference between natural and unnatural objects in nature. For example, it is fairly obvious to most that rounded river bed rocks, sand dunes, waterfalls and canyons have natural causes while things like sandcastles, car engines, computers and Mount Rushmore have intelligent causes.
The principles of forensic science causality and uniformity can be applied to determine its type of cause. Imagine we found a dead body in a house and we want to know whether the cause was natural or unnatural and intelligent a murder. We must use forensic science because we are dealing with an investigation into something that occurred in the past which nobody observed. In our investigation, if we find that the house was locked, the man and the room show no signs of being disturbed, but an examination of his heart reveals a heart attack, we can conclude he died from a natural cause.
It is this type of investigation that we must follow when investigating the origins of the universe, life and human life and whether they had a natural or intelligent cause.
Cosmic evolution, the origin of matter from non-matter, will be addressed first. It will be shown that the universe requires a cause because it had a beginning and that its cause must be both beyond nature and intelligent.
There are five lines of evidence that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning. British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington said,. The Law that entropy increasesЧthe Second Law of ThermodynamicsЧholds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of NatureЕ if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. The Steady State theory was a popular view in the first half of the 20 th century.
However, popular opinion changed in the s when Edwin Hubble, working at Mt. Wilson Observatory, observed that the further a galaxy is from earth, the faster it seemed to be moving away. The idea of an expanding universe was born. Since we know that the universe is expanding, if we extrapolate this expansion backwards in time, we come to a singularityЧa beginning.
In , two Bell Labs scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, were attempting to bounce radio waves off of balloon satellites. They noticed that they received a faint radiation signal regardless of where they pointed the antenna. No explanation other than the Big Bang has been found for the fireball radiation.
The clincher, which has convinced almost the last doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the Steady State theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed. The ripples show that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself.
Any slight variation one way or the other, and none of us would be here to tell about it. Einstein postulated in his General Theory of Relativity that space, matter and time are co-related and interdependent there cannot be one without the others. What this means is that if matter came into existence through a singularity like the Big Bang, then so did space and even time itself. These five lines of evidence prove the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning.
Since causality states that everything that has a beginning has an adequate cause, there must be an adequate cause of the universe, either natural or unnatural. But the cause of the natural world cannot be by nature it cannot be self-caused. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be supernatural beyond nature.
There are three lines of evidence that the cause of the universe is intelligent. First, creation from nothing implies that creation was willed into existence.
The universe once did not existЧand it did not ever have to exist. But since it did come to exist it shows that somebody with a mind and will decided to cause it to exist.
Second, we know the cause is intelligent by looking at what was created. The universe reveals advanced planning of a great mind. Not only is life complex to be discussed shortly but it appears that the universe was fine-tuned for human life from the beginningЧcommonly called the anthropic principle. Jastrow, speaking about this principle said,. The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in.
It [the universe] is a very theistic result. Third, an intelligence of great superiority is indicated by what Einstein called the harmony of natural law :. The harmony of natural lawЕ reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. The world is too complicated in all of its parts to be due to chance alone.
I am convinced that the existence of life on earth with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put togetherЕ The more one learns of biochemistry, the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principleЧan architect. The evidence points to our universe having a beginning, originating from a supernatural cause outside of nature , and having a cause that is intelligent.
Any model which contradicts these points such as a self-caused universe, uncaused universe, or a purely naturalist cosmic evolutionary model does so at the peril of science. This is the first strike for evolution. But it gets worse. The origin of the universe is the first in a cumulative series of challenges for evolution. Next is the origin of first life. Chemical evolution, the origin of living matter from non-living matter, will be addressed next.
It will be shown that the naturalistic view of the origin of first life is also unsatisfactory. In fact, there are two: 1 life spontaneously appeared on its own through chemical reactions in non-living matter and then continued to evolve through naturalistic processes, or 2 life is the result of an intelligent cause.
The popular view in chemical evolution is called spontaneous generation. This view asserts that conditions on early earth allowed the formation of amino acids which developed into DNA and ultimately complex cells. This process is believed to have occurred over four billion years ago and was aided by the sun, volcanic activity and other purely naturalistic processes.
Experiments have been conducted to try to prove spontaneous generation. Most notably was the famous experiment conducted by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in which attempted to show that given the proper amount of chemicals, heat and electricity, life could eventually arise on its own in a sealed environment. They had a mechanism to collect only the amino acids that were produced.
On the contrary, it has been disproven see next. First, it was disproven. It was once widely believed that living things could originate from nonliving matter. But this was proven false by Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur. Although Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, disproved in that higher forms of life could originate spontaneously, proponents of the concept claimed that microbes were different and did indeed arise in this wayЕ in Е in a series of masterful experiments, Pasteur proved that only preexisting microbes could give rise to other microbes biogenesis.
Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment. No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves.
Those who affirm it have been duped by illusions, by ill-conducted experiments, spoilt by errors that they either did not perceive or did not know how to avoid. If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes.
In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earthЕ There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there ever was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment. Third, life would likely be older than the earth itself under the evolutionary model.
A recent paper published by evolutionary geneticists suggests life could be 2. Extrapolating this rate backwards in time, they conclude that life began before the earth was born, possibly very shortly after the Big Bang:. Adjustments for potential hyperexponential effects would push the projected origin of life even further back in time, close to the origin of our galaxy and the universe itself, Other conclusions are 1 it took roughly 5 billion years for life to reach the complexity of bacteria, 2 there was no intelligent life in the universe prior to earth, 3 life was brought to earth by meteoroids, asteroids or comets, 4 intelligent life has just begun to appear in our universe and is not as evenly distributed as the Drake equation suggests and 5 it took many cumulative rare events for life to originate from scratch.
How is it that life arose outside our solar system, possibly very shortly after the Big Bang, in far worse conditions, travelled and survived a very lengthy interstellar space voyage, entered our atmosphere unharmed, found an environment conducive for evolution, and produced the myriad of life forms we see today?