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.

Intelligently designed——Everything in creation—from the largest galaxy to the smallest atom—reveals the fact that it was planned, designed, and constructed by an Intelligent Being of the highest intellect and capabilities.

Complicated interrelated functions of separate systems——All of the various structures and organs in every living thing are marvelously interrelated. In order to maintain its existence, each part depends on many others.

Extremely involved production sequence——The various processes by which things are made in living organisms are complicated in the extreme. Very lengthy production sequences are generally required. Each step in the procedure must follow other correctly taken steps.

Coded instructions which are referred to and obeyed——Not only are coded instructions provided for everything done in the cell, but proteins and enzymes read and obey these instructions—as though they had the brains to do this!

Ideal location of structures——Every component on or within each organism is consistently located in the best place, in relation to other components, space limitations, and maximum efficiency in operation. Only careful planning could do this.

Narrowed limits everywhere——Wherever we turn in the natural world (here on earth and in the sky above us) we find that, what is called, the "anthropic principle" is involved. An extremely narrow range of conditions exists where life can exist, stars can form, and planets can revolve and orbit around the sun. This narrowed range is found repeatedly by researchers, and is too compressed to have been caused by accidents or coincidence.

Functional objects which provide an attractive, even beautiful appearance——Living creatures which are commonly seen are generally quite attractive in appearance. The production of a beautiful form requires intelligent planning and execution. In addition, attractive coloration is provided. Consider the color and shaping of the cardinal, the robin, and many animals and trees. These are elements and attributes which are not necessary for survival, yet which provide additional comfort and beauty. Only intelligence can produce beautiful things.

Excessive information content and capacity in life forms——Such a capacity, far beyond the bare minimum needed for survival, is repeatedly found. The brain power of mankind is remarkable. The lower forms of life also show an abundance of capacity beyond the amount needed for mere survival.

The characteristic of life itself——Within every living organism is a mysterious something which cannot be initiated by any known natural or human-induced device or method. Not even a superior created intelligence could produce this. Only God could implant life. In life, we are confronted with a continual miracle.

The total impossibility of any other means to produce and maintain all these functions and organisms——All the functions and structures in multiplied trillions of organisms must continually be cared for by an Intelligence out of and beyond ourselves. We are told, "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

The existence and operation of basic, and other, natural laws governing everything——Even the laws of nature had to be devised and set in place. They did not spring into being automatically.

The existence, structure, and unvarying function of basic elements of matter——Gaze within the atom. Why do the various particles keep whirling about one another? There are puzzles here which far exceed our understanding of basic matter and electrical forces. The atomic structure, movements, and functions of the elements are amazing.

All of nature is simply too astounding——We are too quick to take everything for granted. It is impossible for everything that exists—to exist—in its present useful form and function, much less in any form or function; yet it does.

The inability of the opposing view to provide even one solid scientific evidence in support of its theory——This is a very revealing fact. A "scientific theory" is not scientific, when it lacks the underlying scientific evidence proving it to be worthwhile. Oh yes, evolution includes theories built on theories. But the basic theory, they are all piled on top of, is totally lacking in scientific evidence.

While Creationists are able to present a multitude of scientific evidences (such as are found in this present book), evolutionists can only reply with ridicule and efforts to stifle discussion—--They dare not present valid scientific data to support their theory, because they have none. The ridicule and lack of supporting scientific evidence are abundantly seen in the articles they write in scientific journals, attempting to refute Creationist books and articles.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...i_vs_ev_28.htm

[Jeremiah]

this settles it then....

[Panzerkampfwagen]

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.

Oh look, the very first thing on your pathetic list totally destroyed.

[TopsyTurvy]

Lol.

[Šñøü†ê®]

I hope the MIT dude's "mousetrap" theory is not his only explanation since it is quite retarded! The mousetrap is not ALIVE! And if the mousetrap was alive, it would not last long eating Brooks Brothers ties!

[Panzerkampfwagen]

I hope the MIT dude's "mousetrap" theory is not his only explanation since it is quite retarded! The mousetrap is not ALIVE! And if the mousetrap was alive, it would not last long eating Brooks Brothers ties!

Point


The edge of the universe


Your head

[oki]

lol that list needs a bit of evolution i think..

[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?”
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp4584911]


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/onlin...tml#wp1603091]

[Panzerkampfwagen]

You do realise that personal incredulity is a fallacy for a reason, right?

[Pappy&Me]

Of course there is a creator besides us ! We create too just in material things .

We would have to be naive or insane to think we are all there is to life .

I also think there is more life and more advanced life than us in one of the trillions of universes.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

Of course there is a creator besides us ! We create too just in material things .

We would have to be naive or insane to think we are all there is to life .

I also think there is more life and more advanced life than us in one of the trillions of universes.

Trillions of universes?

[Adanch]

I *thought* this said "science proves evolution" and I was gonna call BULLSHIT. But I see there is no need for that. This isn't a serious post. Same old same old. Sigh.

[Pahu]

Language 1


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/onlin...tml#wp1008968]

[Panzerkampfwagen]

All the shit you are posting is idiotic shit that has been refuted 11ty billion times.

[Pahu]

Language 2


If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex (f). Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g).


Figure 202:
Language Divergence. Languages are related, as are genes. One of thousands of examples is the word for “from, of.” It exists in French (de), Italian (di), Spanish (de), Portuguese (de), and Romanian (de). So, these languages, now spoken generally in southwestern Europe, are twigs on a tree branch called the Romance languages (Romance referring to Rome). This branch joins a larger branch that includes all languages derived primarily from Latin. They merge with other large branches, such as the Germanic branch that includes English, into a family called the Indo-European languages. When these and other languages are traced back in time, they appear to converge near Mount Ararat, a likely landing site of Noah’s Ark. [See
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1031234] Linguists admit that they do not understand the origin of languages, only how languages spread.

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

f. David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83–89.

George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex.” He then shifted to a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed....Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers....The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.” George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,” Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification.” Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 10.

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples.” Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

g. “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters
even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates.” Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words,” Scientific American, Vol. 264, April 1991, p. 144.

“Noam Chomsky...has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved...Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once.” John Maddox, “The Price of Language?” Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1089945]

[Shandril105]

If design was so intelligent, they would not have put the playground between the sewers in humans.

Just sayin'

[Panzerkampfwagen]

Yawn.

Why shouldn't things become simpler?

[Panzerkampfwagen]

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
The piss poor "design" of the human eye.
The human back.

We can go on. Life shows that things are not intelligently designed but instead show a history of evolution, with things "stuck" with their historical past and just having to make do with that history, something which intelligent design would not be stuck with. Jet planes aren't stuck with props. Jet airlines aren't stuck with biplane wings. Why? Because they were intelligently designed. Life though does show "jet planes with props".

[TopsyTurvy]

And the winner from sourcing one website repeatedly and not looking at other science goes to.......

*drum roll*

[TopsyTurvy]

If we were designed by God why did he make animals better at things than us? If I was God and were creating my 'perfect children' I'd give them the sense of smell of a dog, eyesight of an eagle and the strength of an ant.