1. Evolution is a theory that can't be proven using the scientific method. In the scientific method, you form your hypothesis and then test it with experiments to determine if it's true or not. But with evolution, there's nothing to test. It can't be duplicated in the lab; therefore, it can't be proven. That also highlights a big problem for evolution. If life was so simple to start by happenstance, we should be able to add a few crucial ingredients and create life in the lab, but that hasn't been the case.
Some people will point to evidence of a moth changing colors or insects becoming immune to pesticides as evidence of evolution. This is something called microevolution, which is really just the full genetic expression of a species. However, macroevolution has its limits. A moth may be able to change color, but it's still a moth. It will never become something else. Macroevolution, which is what Darwin espoused, is the changing of one kind into another kind. That is something that has never been observed in nature. Thus, it will forever remain a theory.
True. Real science supposed to be observable and testable.
Theory of evolution (TOE) is neither.
It is known as a theoretical science which operates on a much lower standard of evidence which is based on speculation and assumption. It's closer to philosophy than science.
Microevolution happens.
Mutations happen.
Natural selection also happens with factors such as weather or food supply.
Those moths changed colour over time because the trees changed colour over time, that's not evolution that's natural selection.
But macroevolution never happens.
A species of animal doesn't come from another species of animal. It's never been observed and not even genetic engineering can acheive it
2. Evolution doesn't explain how life began. In the beginning, there was only inorganic matter. For evolution to be true, organic matter would have to arise from inorganic matter. How does that happen? There is no known mechanism by which that could occur. Evolution is based upon mutations, but for mutations to occur, organic material has to already exist. Do you see the problem? It's like the joke: which came first, the chicken or the egg? We live in a cause-and-effect universe. There has to be cause to start the process to begin with.
When you ask an evolutionist how life began many will simply say that not their field of science, that belongs to abiogenesis.
In any case, theoretic materialist science says that all life came from one single cell known as the universal common ancestor.
Problem is that a cell can only replicate itself. A lions skin cell can only replicate a lions skin cell, it cannot replicate a human heart cell.
3. If everything evolved from simple cell organisms, there would have to be thousands, if not millions, of transitional changes from one kind to the next kind. There should be evidence of this in the form of skeletal remains. However, the fossil record just does not show it. Charles Darwin admitted this was a problem for his theory.
Darwin admitted this. But take a fossil such as Lucy. A bunch of bones scattered over a large area. So it's an assumption that it came from one individual. It's less than 50% of a complete skeleton, has no feet bones so it's an assumption that it was a biped. It had no skull so it's an assumption it had a human-like skull. And it's hip was modified to make it look human.
And they point to that as being a transitional fossil between ape and human when it's all based on assumption. If it's actually from one individual in the first place it is just another ape.
A fossil called Archaeopteryx was thought to be a missing link that showed reptiles evolving into birds but it's just an extinct animal. Later they would find that birds were already around before then.
They've also fraudently made fossils. Piltdown man was the best evidence they had for humans coming from apes. It held firm for almost 50 years before it was discovered that they had put a humans skull onto an apes jaw.
4. Evolution runs contrary to the law of thermodynamics. In the theory of evolution, all living creatures are getting better with time. However, thermodynamics states that entropy always increases. In essence, entropy means everything moves from order to disorder, never the reverse. This is why inorganic objects will wear out and need to be replaced, and organic beings get old and die. Things don't get better with time; they get worse.
This is also true for the human genome. Geneticist Dr. John Sanford, in his book Genetic Entropy, says the human race is currently degenerating at 1-2% per generation due to the accumulation of mutations, and "the extinction of the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the extinction of stars, the death of organisms, and the heat death of the universe. " Evolution is built upon mutations, but mutations don't generally make things better; they result in handicaps.
That's also true. Everything deteriorates.
Cells are constantly deteriorating. That's why they have to duplicate so often. A mutation of nearly always a deleterious one. It cannot produce an animal of a different kind. It runs contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.
5. Evolution does not account for the high degree of uniformity we see in nature. Let's take humans for example. Humans are all anatomically the same. We may have superficial differences—different hair, skin, and eye color, for example—but we all have one head, two arms, two legs, the same organs and appendages, and so on. You may see birth defects, as with conjoined twins, but this is an abnormality. The point is, humans and animals would not evolve the exact same way. We should see many different variations in structure and anatomy, but we don't.
True. Different colur hair, skin, eyes in humans are types of mutations but a human is still a human.
Humans have been breeding animals such as dogs and farm animals for thousands of years. We see different breeds but a dog is still a dog, it has never evolved into anything else, they can all still breed with eachother despite being different breeds.
6. Evolution requires many changes over millions of years to organize into complex organisms. But such a long protracted timeframe would actually work against evolution. You see, things like the immune system and blood coagulation would have had to be there from the beginning; otherwise, the organism would die before it had a chance to evolve. Moreover, complex individual systems such as the eyes and ears are interdependent on each other to function. These systems must be complete and functioning as a whole from the beginning; otherwise, they serve no purpose.
Exactly. How does a single cell evolve into different cells and then different systems and then arrange themselves into different animals. It's nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking
7. DNA is analogous to a binary computer code. It contains information that is arranged in different sequences. It is then read by the cells like an instruction manual to build proteins. The question is, where did all that information come from? A computer program requires a programmer, someone outside the system to provide the information. It stands to reason that if DNA acts as code, then it also required an external programmer, or in this case, a creator.
Information doesn't form randomly. You can just randomly put letters together and expect to form coherent words. It would just be an illiterate mess. Only an intelligent designer can put down this code and information in our DNA that is required for life.
8. This final point ties in with the previous point. For evolution to be true, it would, in essence, have to be driven by a non-sentient intelligence. Something as complex as humans and animals can't just come about by happenstance. Our bodies are symmetrical; each organ performs specific tasks. All the systems of the body are individual parts but also interdependent, all working together in a synergetic way. The point is, no matter how you slice it, there has to be some sort of intelligence behind it. So, what's more logical, that we are here because of a non-sentient intelligence or that we got here by a sentient intelligence? To me, the latter is much more plausible.
True. Sometimes they'll say that because animals or genes have similar parts that us evidence for evolution. Again it's nothing more then speculation and wishful thinking.
A Hilux has similar parts to a Land Cruiser, sometimes identical parts. That doesn't mean one evolved from another, it just means its creator, Toyota, used the same parts for two different vehicles.
I enjoyed threading this
@Jericho
If you wrote this then your a genius but even if you copy and paste it your a smart person.
Praise does not go to processes that are blind, random and materialistic as TOE says
Praise goes to God
