Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm ^ | 2008 | Biblelife.org

[chuck_the_tv_out]

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

(Snip)

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

(Snip)

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.

(Snip)

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 toward disorder or chaos, unless changed by an intelligent being.

[DallasMike]

Sorry, not even worth replying to. You make a logical leap that just does not hold water. Where did Jesus say that the earth was 6,000 to 10,000 years old? Where does the Bible say that?

As for a worldwide flood, I suggest that you do a study on the word eretz.

I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe in Noah and I believe that there was a flood. However, there is no reason to believe that it was global. A local flood confined to the area around the Black Sea or Mesopotamia (in other words, where humans were located) fits the record that God has given us, both in the Bible and in the record he has given us on earth.

Get back to me on the word eretz. I’m too tired of answering the same questions over and over again.

[DallasMike]

I seriously doubt the dating methods of the scientific community...I doubt they can tell the difference in something that is a million years old and a billion...

When properly used, they are extremely accurate.

For what it's worth, it's not unusual to see fossils grouped together in clusters. All it means is that the local conditions were right to form fossils.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

a worldwide flood 4,400 years ago

It's like I always say Mike, the people who have a problem with a supernatural creation are the same people who have a problem with the flood, and probably the virgin birth and feeding the 5000, and raising lazurus from the dead, and the existence of Satan and demons, heaven and hell, which are explicitly in the gospels.

I don't have any extra-biblical citations for lazurus being raised from the dead. So is it not true in your mind?

The info about the flood is out there if you want to look.

What does the Bible mean in Gen 6 if it was a local flood?

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

"[local flood killed all people] where humans were located"

so you believe in Noah, and that the flood killed all people except for Noah & family. So do you believe chinese, africans, europeans, aborigines, and eskimos are all descended from Noah in about 5000 years?

I do, I think it would be easy to get that kind of diversity in 5000 years. But do you? It's against mainstream scientific thinking. TOTALLY against it. Lots of people on this thread would have all kinds of names for people who believed something like that.

But you've just said you think all humans apart from Noah were killed, because all humans lived in that little region.

So which wins for you, the Bible and your statement, or mainstream science?

[RonF]

Interesting concept...But wouldn't all Cheetahs have come from one original source, one Cheetah??? No. At least not a single animal recognizable as a Cheetah today. Posit a feline animal with a broadly distributed population. Somewhere in that population an animal is born with a favorable mutation - say, something that enables it to run faster. It eats and gets out of danger better. So do it's kids. The mutation spreads throughout the area around the original progenitor. Note that this is not a cheetah - it's a faster proto-Cheetah. It can still breed with proto-Cheetahs. But as they increase in a particular area they'll also start to breed with each other. Now you have a very fast proto-Cheetah. They'll go through the same process of getting around and breeding with each other. What you end up with is a self-isolating population, as the new-and-improved models tend to breed with each other preferentially. Couple that with the accidents of rivers, mountains, rift valleys, large stretches of habitat incompatible with migration that provides physical isolation.

The result is not one animal being born with a species-specific genome, the "first Cheetah". The result is one or more genetic mutations that spread throughout a population and changes them all into Cheetahs together over a period of time.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Um, maybe that’s why they call it a theory instead of a law.

Who are "they"? Evolutionists? Here is Henry F. Osborn:

In this review we need not devote any time or space to fresh arguments for the truth of evolution. The demonstration of evolution as a universal law of living nature is the great intellectual achievement of the nineteenth century. Evolution has outgrown the rank of a theory, for it has won a place in natural law beside Newton's law of gravitation, and in one sense holds a still higher rank, because evolution is the universal master, while gravitation is one among its many agents. Nor is the law of evolution any longer to be associated with any single name, not even with that of Darwin, who was its greatest exponent. It is natural that evolution and Darwinism should be closely connected in many minds, but we must keep clear the distinction that evolution is a law, while Darwinism is merely one of the several ways of interpreting the workings of this law.

The Origin of Life

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Closed means no imported energy or matter.

Actually "closed" means no exchange of matter. "Adiabatically isolated" means no exchage of matter or energy.

[Buck W.]

Evolution is entirely compatible with the practice of the Christian faith.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

"Evolution is entirely compatible with the practice of the Christian faith"

ok, so if I say "magic pixies dance in the moonlight", then that's true, too? it's supposed to go like this: statement --> reasoning.

statement without reasoning is just noise. we try to increase the information:noise ratio here, not decrease it.

Evolution is scientifically wrong, for the many reasons many posters have posted before now. A search for "creation" will find many good examples. It's also biblically incorrect to say that Adam's father was a poo-flinging monkey, for example. The gospels call Adam the son of God, for example.

The Bible also says the death entered the world through sin; Adam's sin.

OK, so there's a brief bit of reasoning

[Buck W.]

“OK, so there’s a brief bit of reasoning”

That’s not reasoning—that’s scripture quotation. Devout Christians like myself recognize that the Bible is allegorical and cannot be used to make a scientific argument. There is no issue with the idea that God used evolution as the method to get us here.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

"the Bible is allegorical"

I see. that's called making up your own god. It's very popular today. your bible says whatever you want it to say. that's a new age religion.

It's quite a broad gate you have there.

New age bull alert!

[Buck W.]

Not at all. My Bible is the Christian Bible. I believe that God gave us the intelligence to figure out how he got us here, and would be disappointed if we didn’t try.

[DallasMike]

It's like I always say Mike, the people who have a problem with a supernatural creation are the same people who have a problem with the flood...

Why are you writing to me? I have no problem with supernatural creation or the flood.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

He told you how he got us here.
You’ve just decided to say “no, I think that’s wrong”.

When you create a god to suit yourself, that’s called idolatry.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

OK that's great. But you said:

As for a worldwide flood, I suggest that you do a study on the word eretz. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe in Noah and I believe that there was a flood. However, there is no reason to believe that it was global. A local flood confined to the area around the Black Sea or Mesopotamia (in other words, where humans were located)

OK so first 'erets, Strong's Number 0776 yes that means the whole Earth in this case. So then I said:

so you believe in Noah, and that the flood killed all people except for Noah & family. So do you believe chinese, africans, europeans, aborigines, and eskimos are all descended from Noah in about 5000 years?

I do, I think it would be easy to get that kind of diversity in 5000 years. But do you? It's against mainstream scientific thinking. TOTALLY against it. Lots of people on this thread would have all kinds of names for people who believed something like that.

But you've just said you think all humans apart from Noah were killed, because all humans lived in that little region.

So which wins for you, the Bible and your statement, or mainstream science?

I would be really interested what you think, because my theory is that you want to fit the Bible around science that you believe is proved. The problem with that is (a) the science is not true, just widely accepted. (b) it reduces Christianity to a fabrication that you mould as you see fit, allegorizing what you think science is against. Fortunately, that way is the wrong one.

[DallasMike]

I don't have any extra-biblical citations for lazurus being raised from the dead. So is it not true in your mind?

Of course it's true. Why would you think that I don't believe it? I've already stated my position.

The info about the flood is out there if you want to look.

Yes, I've seen it. They're a joke to anybody with an understanding of science.

What does the Bible mean in Gen 6 if it was a local flood?

I commented to someone on this thread -- perhaps you, I don't remember -- that they needed to go a word study on the Hebrew word eretz and understand it's different meanings. Actually, if you read the Bible closely and understand the various meanings of Hebrew words, the flood must have been local. This fits exactly with what God has revealed to us through his creation.

[DallasMike]

OK so first 'erets, Strong's Number 0776 yes that means the whole Earth in this case.

You did not read your whole link. You are starting from a false premise.

Here is how your link describes eretz:

land, earth b>
whole earth (as opposed to a part)
earth (as opposed to heaven)
earth (inhabitants)
land
country, territory
district, region
tribal territory
piece of ground
land of Canaan, Israel
inhabitants of land
Sheol, land without return, (under) world
city (-state)
ground, surface of the earth
ground
soil
(in phrases)
people of the land
space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
level or plain country
land of the living
end(s) of the earth
(almost wholly late in usage)
lands, countries
often in contrast to Canaan

[DallasMike]

I would be really interested what you think, because my theory is that you want to fit the Bible around science that you believe is proved.

Sorry, but your theory is wrong. I believe that all truth is God's truth and that God has not lied to us through his creation. I do not wrap the Bible around science nor do I wrap science around the Bible. There is no conflict between science and the Bible.

I hate to link to Wikipedia, but the entry for Galileo does a good job of showing how Christians of the time wrongly believed that the Galileo's observations contradicted the Bible:

From antiquity, the majority of people subscribed to the Ptolemaic theory of geocentrism that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth. This theory accorded with available scientific knowledge at the time, agreed with a literal interpretation of scripture in several places, such as 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5. Further, since in the Incarnation the Son of God had descended to the earth and become man, it seemed fitting that the earth be the center around which all other celestial bodies moved. Heliocentrism, the theory that the earth revolved around the sun, contradicted both geocentrism and the prevailing theological support of the theory.

The Young-Earthers of today are the spiritual descendants of those who believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

terrible. reply. you ignored my question which was asked twice. you say that you believe it was a local flood that killed all people, because all people lived in that small region.

I called you on it, asking you to confirm if you think all eskimos/aborigines etc etc came from Noah, you ignored it twice, because you obviously DON'T really believe what you said, it's only about bending the Bible to meet science to you

Then your most recent post, which simply attempts guilt by association.

http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=1+Chronicles+16:30 http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Psalm+93:1 http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Psalm+96:10 http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Psalm+104:5 http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Ecclesiastes+1:5

NONE of those verses support the Ptolemaic (egyptian occultist) view anyway. We still talk about the "sun rising".

[Fawn]