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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is that so? Or is man simply given a chance to name the animals?

Are you saying that God could not create them w/o man naming them?

The simple meaning is that God allows Adam to name them to show that he has truly given Adam and mankind, in turn, dominion over them.

General consensus before molecular biology scoffed at the notion that man was comprised of dust.

You're going to have to be a bit more specific, because science has generally considered living things to be comprised of the same atoms that all material things are made of.

Thank you allmendream, these verses simply describe Dr. Walt Brown’s hydroplate theory.

Yours most probably is a bad translation, mine is from a paraphrase called ‘The Way’, which is how the 1st century christians referred to their new belief system.

Here is what my it says in Psalm 104:

5
You bound the earth together so that it would never fall apart.
6
You clothed the earth with floods of waters covering up the mountains
7
You spoke, and at the sound of your shout the water collected into its vast ocean beds,
8
and mountains rose and valleys sank to the levels you decreed
9
And then you set a boundary for the seas, so that they would never again cover the earth.

Am I now? Just because I’ve read it in a book someplace doesn’t make it true for you huh? Well sorry it’s late and I feel that your specifics as well as those of your comrades has been somewhat lacking on these threads as well.

Pray that maybe tomorrow I’ll feel more inclined to provide this research for you.

Is that so? Or is man simply given a chance to name the animals?

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Looks to me as if Adam was created before the animals, but your interpretation may be different.

Pray that maybe tomorrow I’ll feel more inclined to provide this research for you.

I'm quite confident you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Science has never been in conflict with the notion that living things are made of the same material as non living things.

“believe that the flood occurred at least 10,000 years ago, probably more like 20,000 to 30,000 years ago”

that proves you make up whatever you like to back up your argument, but it changes nothing.

Your mind and mine seem to be in perfect synch! I hesitated to refer to things like the Garden of Eden as mythical, because many people react emotionally, thinking that myths are false by definition, and can't express truth. Also, Biblical stories are obviously far more profound than the silly folklore of American Indians and other primitive peoples, or the Greco-Roman gods, for that matter. I used to know an English major who pointed out that Genesis was far greater as literature than the Iliad or the Odyssey. The classical gods, or the pagan Germanic ones, were just big, evil, selfish people, basically. They never made moral commandments to people or to themselves.

Like you, I believe that Jesus and the disciples did perform actual miracles. I think the Bible shows that God does not perform or authorize miracles on a routine basis (otherwise, they wouldn't be miraculous), nor does He bail out every believer in trouble. Miracles are mainly used to advance the Gospel and the church at critical moments, when it might otherwise have been extinguished.

I think whenever one reads the Bible, esp. the Old Testament, one should always think: What is the moral of this story? What is the real point?

That's what worries me so much. The fundamentalists (actually a better term would be "literalists," because people like me are all for the fundamentals of the Bible) are defending that which cannot be defended, using absurd arguments about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics (which does not apply), etc. They love to say that radiometric dating is unreliable and cite a few anomalous dates; when unexpected dates are found, scientists are motivated to run more tests, and the overall pattern is one of high consistency between different radiometric dates and stratigraphic relative ages. They love to drag up Piltdown Man. Saying that Piltdown Man is typical is like claiming that because there are some fake art works, everything in every art museum is a fraud. The literalists are risking the entire future of Christianity (on which Western culture is based) on feeble and fallacious pseudo-scientific arguments.

All scientists are not fakes who participate in a conspiracy against faith. There certainly are plenty of intellectuals (some scientists) who do hate Christianity, but there is no point fighting them with arguments which can be decisively defeated.

Hmm. I don't have time on my ultra-slow ISP to research the exact definitions, unfortunately. A cursory check seems to indicate varying definitions. Anyway, according to Wikipedia (yes, I know about the weakness of Wikipedia), the 2nd Law applies only to isolated systems. So I may have used the wrong term, but I think I was correct that the 2nd Law does not apply to life on earth.

the 2nd Law applies only to isolated systems. So I may have used the wrong term, but I think I was correct that the 2nd Law does not apply to life on earth.

If it were true that the second law did not apply to closed or open systems, then you could build a closed or open system perpetual motion machine of the second kind. But you cannot do so, because the second law applies to all systems.

If the sun abruptly died tomorrow, photosynthesis would cease, and soon thereafter all advanced life, in fact everything except perhaps a few creatures who rely on geothermal heat (which is not inexhaustible either), would die out. So only the importation of huge amounts of energy from outside the boundaries of earth keeps life going. Even so, most of that energy is wasted, and does not lead to limitless increase in complex life forms.

I gather from some references that an "isolated" system in which the 2nd Law applies is theoretically possible, but practically impossible. The earth itself is full of small subsystems which are partially isolated temporarily from the larger system, and it is only because of that that we can survive at all. We read a lot about how "antioxidants" are important to health. That's essentially because most of the compounds in your body are thermodynamically unstable; they are preserved because your skin, immune system, ingestion of antioxidants, etc. are able to protect them for several decades. So life exists because of short-term partial isolation of organisms from the larger system. It all depends on where you draw the boundaries of the system.

The 2nd Law does not rule out minor or local conversions of energy to useful work. It just says the process is always wasteful.

I've heard conflicting studies. I think the key reason for the contradiction is contained in your citation: approximately two thirds of Southern Baptist churches attend churches only sporadically. When studies are restricted to evangelicals who actually attend church regularly, the results are dramatically different; those evangelicals actually do have lower divorce rates.

I also heard of a study which showed that evangelical young people who stop attending during college often do return once they become adults.

Anyway, it is difficult to maintain Christian beliefs and behavioral standards when the entire government education system and the media are relentlessly working to sabotage your parents' values.

Thanks. I believe with absolute certainty that the Garden of Eden was -- and still may be -- a literal place on planet earth. I believe that God placed Adam there and created Eve there.
Like you, I also believe that the significance of the Garden of Eden is far greater than just 'Latitude X, Longitude Y.' It was a special place, quite likely with physical laws somewhat different from the rest of the planet. It's a myth, but a myth made real. You're probably a fan of C.S. Lewis and understand that.
You're so right that there is a huge difference between petty pagan Gods and the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. In God, "we live, and move, and have our being." How interesting that Paul quoted an Athenian poet to reach the Athenians. It's also interesting that, in Ephesians 2:10, God actually calls us poetry (ποίημα poiēma)! What a wonderful expresion of love!

When did Darwininuts become the procurers of free thought considering they are a member of a religion by definition and practice? Modern evolutionary biology has rejected reason and evidence and replaced it with fanciful tales and pretty drawings. I heard that Richard Dawkins is expecting an UFO to bring back Haeckel and they were going to take off together in their spaceship and drink kool-aid and sing the famous intellectual ballad, “If I only had a brain”. Yea, Haeckel was once mainstream and so were various theories relating to ambiogenisis but reason prevailed against the cult leaders of the day. Hold on but Science today FINALLY has it together and has abandoned these weaker theories right? Unfortunately some who claim “science” lie. The only evidence that exists for evolution is the opinions, predispositions, and rhetoric of pseudo-scientific extremists.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.