Jump to content

WHY EVOLUTION CAN'T BE TRUE


Guest angela_444

Recommended Posts

Guest angela_444

 

WHY EVOLUTION CAN'T BE TRUE

 

Naturalism-Much of science is subject to naturalism. This is the belief that the only thing that exists is the physical universe and the laws that determine its behavior as exhibited by nature. Therefore Naturalism rejects anything supernatural including God, or, if God exists, then He doesn’t intervene in the physical world.

 

Today much of society is infused with the view of naturalism. This assumption is taught through education, and presented as “truth”. Thus this view then branches out to influential areas which then determine the course of society.

 

 

The aim goes something like this:

We need to get people to think in a certain way therefore we determine what is taught, because more mind control means less freedom in interpretation and openness to other options. A person can only interpret or operate in the boundaries of the permitted freedom given to them. This is a problem when dealing with the things of God, for God is not limited in the way He speaks to people and in the way He chooses to work things out in a person’s life. God is the absolute being of true freedom, and where there is true freedom; there is also no restriction or openness in interpretation. As a result, people have become more and more literal in their interpretation of things, or expect literal interpretations from others

 

 

Therefore the result goes something like this:

The only answer allowed to the following question is “blue”.

So “What color is the (clear) water in the swimming pool? “Blue”. Every other possible or truthful answer has been ruled of limits right from the start, since the rules have been set from the beginning, and therefore many correct or true answers have been pre-eliminated. If you answer anything else, you are made to appear as a non-conformist, weird or backward.

 

 

EVOLUTION:

Firstly we need to define what evolution is:

There are 2 types of evolution.

 

1) Microevolution: This is change or development within a species. For e.g. the changes or developments that occur in a human as they pass from being a baby to an adult. Everyday reality shows us proof of this and this is in agreement with the Bible.

 

2) Macroevolution: This is the belief from the theory that states all forms of life came from a single ancestor by chance. For e.g humans, animals, plant life, have all resulted from a single cell. Everyday reality as well as good science doesn’t give us any proof of this and this is not in agreement with the Bible.

 

 

*The contradiction:

 

The Bible teaches that in the Beginning, God created the universe and mankind and that at creation everything was created good and perfect and that death and decay occurred when sin entered the universe. In agreement to this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics (science) which states that the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. In other words things lose their structure. This universal principle of decay is observable in nature. Everything ages and wears out. Ageing and death are a manifestation of this law which is why people grow old and die. Nature proves to us that things grow old and eventually decay or die.

 

Contradictory to this, the theory of evolution states that things develop in complexity and structure and therefore improve.

This is a contradiction because you cannot have one law of science stating one thing and then also stating the complete opposite.

 

* The discovery and dedication of Noah’s Ark in Turkey (Dogubeyazit -in the mountains of Ararat-as described in the Bible) makes null and void any evolution theory. One must examine all spectrum of evidence if one is to reach truth, not just evidence that appears to be in agreement with what one wants to believe.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y5ORpMTebI

 

“…and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” (Genesis 8:4)

 

The main mechanisms behind the theory of Evolution are:

a) Natural selection

B) Genetic drift

c) Mutation

d) migration

 

a) Natural selection: This is the process by which species that best fit their environment tend to survive and pass their characteristics on to their offspring. Living organisms with a favorable genetic makeup for a specific environment are likely to survive and have offspring. Those that are least adapted are unlikely to live to adulthood and reproduce. If an animal develops a trait which helps it to survive, it will be more likely to pass the trait on to future generations, eventually resulting in the widespread appearance of that trait as successive generations breed.

It is reasonable to expect the fit or strong to live and pass on their genes, whilst weak or helpless offspring with defects rarely surviving to reach maturity and be able to reproduce. For example naturally any animal with extra body fat is at an advantage over other animals if living in very cold conditions, which will help it to survive.

The problem is when naturalists claim that this process has the ability to result in the emergence of an entirely new species over time.

 

The problem with this view is that evolutionists misuse or misinterpret the classic example they use about peppered moths to confirm natural selection. During the Industrial Revolution (in England), trees had been darkened by industrial smoke. The white peppered moths stood out against the tree trunks making them easy targets for predators (birds), while the dark moths were at an advantage since they were camouflaged against the darkened trunks, therefore being able to survive and pass on their genes for dark coloration to future generations because they had lived long enough to breed. Eventually the moth population had become primarily dark. Later when the air quality had improved, the lighter moths had the advantage.

 

The problem with this example is that it does not support that natural selection produces new species, because irregardless of circumstances, the moths still remain moths.

This would be like saying that due to many white people being killed say after a war took place in Africa, the dark man should now develop into a new species in Africa, because they were at the advantage to survive and pass on their genes.

 

*In order to support their claim, Darwinists also compare natural selection to artificial selection demonstrated by humans when they breed plants and animals for beneficial traits.

Since people like dog or horse breeders are able to bring out the best traits in successive generations of the animals, they say that a similar process must be occurring in nature.

The problem here is that artificial selection is guided by intelligence, whereas natural selection isn’t. Again the result in artificial selection is always a dog or a horse.

 

Another problem with natural selection is that it implies that species should become homogeneous (the same kind) over time as animals with positive traits dominate the gene pool.

However the immense diversity in most species, shows us this is not the case, because of things like genetic drift and spontaneous mutations, which ensure that the gene pool does not become too simplistic.

 

B) Genetic drift: These are chance changes in the gene frequencies of a population from generation to generation. These changes would usually affect the genetic makeup of a small population. For example in a small primitive society a tribal chief may take many wives and have many children, thus his genes may greatly increase the population, or someone with a rare gene that has no children will cause that gene to disappear from the population. This is caused by luck or given situations at the time rather than a need for adaptation.

 

 

c) Mutations: These are changes that occur in the hereditary material of an organisms cells. By altering this material, a mutation changes certain traits, resulting in a new trait that one shouldn’t normally have. For example having an extra toe on your foot. Evolutionists argue that these changes are important as a factor in producing new and supposedly higher forms or species, but nature shows that most mutations that cause visible changes are harmful- such as the reduction in the size of wings on a fly or a bird or Down syndrome.

These harmful mutations tend not to increase in a population, because they do not help a species adapt to its environment. So if mutations have the tendency not to increase a population, then how does one deduce that an entire new species can results from these?

 

Evolutionists argue that some mutations enable an organism to both survive and reproduce better than other members of its species. Such beneficial mutations- if they are germinal (i.e. the passing on of a mutation to its offspring only if the mutation affects cells that produce eggs or sperm) are the basis for evolution.

However as stated before improvement in a species does not prove that a species can evolve into a new species. You can sit there breeding dogs all your life in order to get the ideal dog, but the result will always be a dog!

 

d) Migration: It is natural and normal for species to migrate to other places to search for provision such as food or warmer weather. Humans do the same thing when they migrate to different places when in need of food or warmer weather. Surely some changes take place in their appearance due to the environment they are subject to such as putting on a few more kilos or getting a tan, but despite the migration process they still remain humans.This doesn’t prove evolution.

 

 

Different kingdoms:

 

There are 3 kingdoms. The plant kingdom, the animal kingdom and the human kingdom. Each of these kingdoms has its own unique mechanisms designed for the functioning and allowance of reproduction only within its own kingdom. Each kingdom can interbreed within itself to produce variety, and even then there are variations in how this reproduction is brought about. Since the genetic makeup or codes within species of each kingdom are different, this does not allow for the functioning of reproduction between members belonging to different kingdoms.

Evolutonists take the interbreeding of a species that produces variation within that same species in order to try and prove their case.

 

Stubborn hearts:

Despite the lack of evidence for evolution, if an evolutionist doesn’t want to believe in the supernatural, then they will diligently continue to only look for natural explanations.

 

The result of all these mechanisms is variations and adaptations for survival within a species without producing a new species. These minor variations within a species for the purpose of variation and adaptation is no proof of macroevolutionary change.

 

The fossil record:

The major problem with evolution is the major lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. If animals gradually evolved from a common ancestor, then surely there would be evidence of these animals in their transitional form in the fossil record. The fact that we don’t see these transitional forms among fossils proves that species HAVE NOT descended from other species. Even Darwin asked himself this question. Unfortunately students are given the impression that all life has evolved from a common ancestor in the diagram of the evolutionary tree found in their Biology textbooks.

 

If this theory were true, then surely today we would see some animal being in its transitory phase of becoming a new animal. For e.g. we would see a dog somewhere with a 3 metre tail and one extra long ear getting ready to become a new kind of animal.

 

The fossil record shows that species don’t arise gradually by steady transformation, but appear full formed. Examination of the best fossil beds hasn’t shown a single transition from one species to another. Therefore the fossil record itself doesn’t support Darwinian evolution.

 

The missing link: Is a hypothetical creature assumed to have been the connecting link between man and the anthropoid apes. Attempts to find this have had the following results:

 

Nebraska man: The tooth of Nebraska man was later discovered to be from a wild pig not a human ancestor.

 

Java man: consisted of a skullcap, a femur and 3 teeth. The discoverer mentioned little about the 2 human skulls that were found nearby.

 

Piltdown man: was a fraud as the jaw of an orangutan had been combined with the skull of a human and was stained and reshaped to match the color of the human skull. Other bones were also reshaped and stained. Despite the fraud, Piltdown was still used to portray human evolution as a fact to students.

 

The problem is that people who want to believe in evolution first ASSUME that evolution is fact, and then try to interpret any findings in light of this “fact”. Evolutionists may argue that Christians likewise do the same thing, however the evidence and reasoning that accompanies the Christian faith, far outweighs evolutionary “evidence.”

 

 

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY:

This refers to any system of interacting parts that needs every part in its rightful form and position to function. It has to do with mathematical precision. Removal of even one of the parts will cause the system to stop functioning.

Irreducible complexity is proof that evolution is false because in irreducible complex systems, any previous system to an irreducible complex system that is missing a part or have any of its parts slightly out of form (e.g. if one part grew slightly bigger) would cause the system to be non-functional.

 

An example of such a system is the bacterial flagellum. This is a tiny propeller rotated by a motor, allowing many bacteria to swim. It requires all its parts to function. Irregardless of how many interacting parts are needed to cause a system to function (for many will try and refute irreducible complexity by arguing that a system can still function on fewer parts), the point of the matter is that any number of interacting parts are needed in order to cause the system to function.

For example a person who can only see with one eye won’t see as well as someone with 2 eyes, but they can still see.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible teaches that in the Beginning, God created the universe and mankind and that at creation everything was created good and perfect and that death and decay occurred when sin entered the universe. In agreement to this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics (science) which states that the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. In other words things lose their structure. This universal principle of decay is observable in nature. Everything ages and wears out. Ageing and death are a manifestation of this law which is why people grow old and die. Nature proves to us that things grow old and eventually decay or die.

 

Contradictory to this, the theory of evolution states that things develop in complexity and structure and therefore improve.

This is a contradiction because you cannot have one law of science stating one thing and then also stating the complete opposite.

 

Evolution does not contradict with thermodynamics.

 

The problem with your argumentation is:

- You regard the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a number of words, which can be interpreted.

- You regard "complexity" only on a macroscopic level, not molecular. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is especially valid on a atomic/molecular level.

- You take the earth as your system boundaries, and exclude the sun.

 

After finding all these problems, I stopped reading.

I have reported the post as religious nonsense, and I hope it is moved to another subforum, as it certainly does not belong in the Evolution subforum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.