Theory of evolution!!!
I will explain here scientific facts and not theories or hypothesis….
If evolution has really taken place then living organishms should have developed by gradual incremental changes and continued to change over time. But the fossile record shows the exact opposite. Defferent groups of organisms appeared suddenly with no similar ancestors behind them, and reamained in their original state for millions of years, undergoing no change at all. I will give the proof here with the fossil records. Click on the images here…
|
Hope you saw the pictures.. Now i want to ask the question:
“WHY THIS SPECIES NOT HAVING TRANSFORMATION”
I know that you will have answers, but i need scientific answers.Is there any any scientific answer for my question? Why iam aksing for scientific facts is that:
Supporters propound upon the Theory of Evolution as if it has scientific support, which it does not. They switch tactics when pressed against the wall with solid scientific proofs against the Theory of Evolution as presented above by stating that evolution is “only” a theory. Using this flip-flop approach they try to have it both ways. They claim scientific support when none exists, and they claim it is only a theory when the theory straddles them with outlandish, impossible conclusion that violate scientific truths.
Here i am trying to put 8 Scientific Evidences one-by-one against Theory of Evolution.
Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a “higher-order”.
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds’ which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Evidence #8
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
COURTESY: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
Many …believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact’ and, therefore, it must be accepted… In recent years, a great many people…having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists.”
– Henry Morris, former evolutionist.
Do you know Anthony Flew, probably the world’s greatest philosophical atheist, who recently turned away from atheism and said he now believes in a creator. He said, “I had to follow the evidence.”
I think if you do look at cosmology and physics and biochemistry and genetics and consciousness and astronomy, the arrows point in a direction and I think that direction is toward an intelligent designer.
2 Responses to “Theory of evolution!!!”
Leave a Reply
Network's G i z Z z Z z Z
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
Your views on Theory of Evolution are misleading to the general public. I find that those were copied from websites of “Creation Science” proponents. E.g., http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
The people behind the scene are Jason Browning, Dr. Gerald Lenner, and Mark Rajock and they are engineers and professionals with graduate degrees, largely in computer science.
Now, before proceeding to test your evidences, let us look at the source of these arguments. My observations are
(1) The source is not from a reputed or recognized or well know research institute.
(2) The source even doesn’t have their own DOMAIN NAME! They float their not-eve-a-penny-worth ideas in a public domain website.
(3) The proponents are not qualified to argue about theory of evolution. They haven’t spent even 1% of the effort spent by various theorists and researchers behind evolution theory.
Regarding the various “so called evidences”, they are not at all qualified to call evidences. They are simply some expressions of some negative attitudes or closed mind. Take a look at
“Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a “higher-order”.”
How do they prove this “incapability? It is something like saying “E can never become equal to MCsquared”
Another one…
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
I am wondering if somebody would call the above statement “an Evidence”. This is simply an argument/suggestion, without any proof.
Again
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Where is the evidence part of it? This is again just a statement
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Same as above
Evidence #8
The rock strata find (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Atleast provide some explanation, rather than beating around the bush. Rather than simply saying “I don’t believe” or “NO!” provide some facts!!!!!
So the moral of the story is, these proponents of “Belief theories”, are just like what Shameer does. They don’t do any research. They copy what they find in internet and believe that they are TRUE. The same way, they can easily “BELIEVE” in theory of evolution also.
Regards,
Jojan
‘Evidence #1′
If you look at how long the Earth has been in existence and at how many species and individuals of each species have come and gone… and then compare that with how many fossils are recovered you would see quickly that the fossil record is a drop in the ocean. That is to say, the amount of fossilised species recovered is but a tiny amount of those that have lived. So it is not surprising that evolutionary links between fossils can’t observed when you might only have 1% of the species that ever lived. In fact similarities can be seen between fossils that suggest evolution, I believe there is one in which the development of wings is visible, clearly the predecessor to flying lizards.
‘Evidence #2′
I would first ask you to define ‘higher-order’ because the term seems entirely ambiguous and liable to misinterpretation, I presume you mean in terms of brain power and intelligence. Consider monkeys, some species use tools like twigs to extract grubs from a log, others are able to identify a dozen or so species of medicinal plants and supplement their diet with them for their appropriate ailment. These abilities stretch beyond simply evolving speed for running or strength for fighting, they are undoubtedly adaptations that stem from the mind. If a species is able to find food when the fruit bearing trees may be barren and if they are able to recover from illnesses faster and so curb the number of weakened animals that are liable to be picked off by predators then the species will be more successful. That is survival of the fittest right there and it is involving the brain. Developing the sort of intelligence that humans possess is simply the next logical step, albeit one that is extraordinarily lucky and timely to gain.
‘Evidence #3′
Firstly matter did not result simply from nothing, it resulted from energy, as for where the energy came from… well religion hardly offers a better view on it simply by saying that some intelligent, omnipotent being created it from nowhere shortly after assumedly creating themselves. I don’t think you have any justification for saying that these things are an impossibility, just because you don’t understand them or because they are not fully understood by our species yet. Just because the how and why of something has yet to be elegantly explored and discovered does not make it simply impossible. Tell someone two hundred years ago that men will land on the moon and you’ll be able to fly anywhere in the world in a matter of hours… would they have thought either of those feats possible?
‘Evidence #4′
To begin with you seem to have a rather condescending take on them believing they used to exist, that is what science does, it formulates an opinion based on what it has at hand, on what is most logical, until someone comes up with something better at a later point when they have more information and tools. This is not something to be ridiculed, it is a more sensible solution to simply presenting something as fact and then never changing or updating it when you have better information to hand, ie. what religion does. As for them being unrevealing, inconsistent and non conclusive, that is merely your uninformed opinion on the matter which you ironically seem to be stating as if fact, when that is precisely what you are having a go at the ‘evolutionists’ for doing.
‘Evidence #5/6′
I’m not sure the source of your ‘facts’ is at all reliable here…
‘Evidence #7′
Can it now? Care to present some reasons why? Simply stating your opinion without a logical explanation or information to support you claim is not ‘evidence.’ Natural selection is easily observable within a social setting, the males of a species fighting or displaying to attract a female. The female chooses the strongest male in order to get the strongest genes and so produce better offspring. Fairly simple concept.
‘Evidence #8′
When you use terms like ‘universal flood’ what exactly do you mean? A quick search on the term would reveal it to be relating to Noah’s Ark and if that is the case, and that is your argument then really your understanding of anything I have said here is going to be minimal at best…
You are seriously suggesting that an entirely inconsistent and illogical story is a better explanation than… evolution, right? Well evolution isn’t the reason for fossilisation, you now seem to have entirely strayed from the original point of your argument. Sedimentary rock is layered because it builds up slowly, it does not evolve, it is simply deposited over the eons by water flow and the like. Animals get buried under it and if the chemistry, pressure, heat etc are just right then they will become fossilised. Therefore older animals will be lower down in the rock through some fairly basic logic but your explanation is a big flood made some mud build up and everything got jumbled around inside it for a bit? Yes, I see your point, that is a far better explanation, tell me: was this before or after the big boat showed up and delivered all the animals to safety? Seriously…