Evolutionary theory debunked

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

I am the only god

[MVP]

I am the only god

https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/raptor_pope.jpg

[Mustang]

Evolution is fake

[Lucy]

Evolution is fake

I keep getting banned

[maxell]

Could the moon form by itself?
Evolutionists (and progressive creationists) deny the moon’s direct creation by God. They have come up with several theories, but they all have serious holes, as many evolutionists themselves admit. For example, lunar researcher S. Ross Taylor said: ‘The best models of lunar origin are the testable ones, but the testable models for lunar origin are wrong.’9 Another astronomer said, half-jokingly, that there were no good (naturalistic) explanations, so the best explanation is that the moon is an illusion!10

1. Fission theory, invented by the astronomer George Darwin (son of Charles). He proposed that the earth spun so fast that a chunk broke off. But this theory is universally discarded today. The earth could never have spun fast enough to throw a moon into orbit, and the escaping moon would have been shattered while within the Roche Limit.
   When day becomes night …One of the most fascinating sights in the sky is a total eclipse of the sun. This is possible because the moon is almost exactly the same angular size (half a degree) in the sky as the sun—it is both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun. This looks like design. If the moon had really been receding for billions of years, and man had been around for a tiny fraction of that time, the chances of mankind living at a time so he could observe this precise size matchup would be remote.12
   
2. Capture theory—the moon was wandering through the solar system, and was captured by Earth’s gravity. But the chance of two bodies passing close enough is minute; the moon would be more likely to have been ‘slingshotted’ like artificial satellites than captured. Finally, even a successful capture would have resulted in an elongated comet-like orbit.
   
3. Condensation theory—the moon grew out of a dust cloud attracted by Earth’s gravity. However, no such cloud could be dense enough, and it doesn’t account for the moon’s low iron content.
   
4. Impact theory— the currently fashionable idea that material was blasted off from Earth by the impact of another object. Calculations show that to get enough material to form the moon, the impacting object would need to have been twice as massive as Mars. Then there is the unsolved problem of losing the excess angular momentum.11
   

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

When numerical assumptions are made that favour evolution happening … it takes 84 million years to get just two letters lined up in an individual. This greatly exceeds the timeframe—about seven million years— evolutionists give for the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with chimps.

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Sickle-cell anemia does not prove evolution!

Sickle-cell anaemia is caused by an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. You will only develop the full-blown, serious disease if both of your parents have the defective gene. If you inherit the defect from only one parent, the healthy gene from the other one will largely enable you to escape the effects of this serious condition.
However, this means you are capable of transmitting the defective gene to your offspring, and it also happens that such carriers are less likely to develop malaria, which is often fatal. Being a carrier of sickle-cell disease without suffering it (heterozygosity is the technical term) is far more common in those areas of the world which are high-risk malaria areas, especially Africa.
This is good evidence that natural selection plays a part in maintaining a higher frequency of this carrier state. If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease. Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.

[i wanna be a bimbo doll]

Microevolution is stupid but macroevolution is obviously real

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Getting all the right ingredients

Right here there is a major problem for chemical soup approaches to the origin of life: all the components have to be present in the same location for a living cell to have any possibility of being assembled. But necessary components of life have carbonyl (>C=O) chemical groups that react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds. Such carbonyl-containing molecules include sugars, which also form the backbone of DNA and RNA. Living cells have ways of keeping them apart and protecting them to prevent such cross-reactions, or can repair the damage when it occurs, but a chemical soup has no such facility.

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Organisms have well-defined molecular assemblies, redox potentials across membranes, and metabolic pathways — all operating in exquisite states that we call “life.” 

Chemistry, by contrast, is utterly indifferent to whether anything is alive or not. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to “evolve” toward life. Never.

While organisms exploit chemistry for their own ends, chemicals have never been seen to assemble themselves into an organism. Origin-of-life research keeps attempting to make the chemicals needed for life, and then to have those assemble toward something to which they are inherently indifferent. But try as they might, without preexisting life no researchers have ever seen molecules assemble into a living cell, or anything even remotely resembling a living cell. Contrary to the hyperbole of press reports, any synthetic molecularly derived structures that have been touted as being cell-like are in reality far from it. This situation might change in the future, but it is unlikely to change under the current course of research. Scientists have no data to support molecular “evolution” leading to life. The research community remains clueless. 

Led Astray by Researchers’ Claims

Many scientists and professors who are outside boutique origin-of- life circles have been led astray by researchers’ claims and the subsequent press, thinking that far more is known about life’s origin than really is known. This has affected the highest seats in the academy where even some science professors confuse origin of life with biological evolution. Like a muddy prebiotic cesspool, confusion abounds in the academy. 

Two-thirds of a century since the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment, where some racemic amino acids were formed from small molecules and an electrical discharge, the world is no closer to generating life from small molecules — or any molecules for that matter — than it was in 1952. One could argue that origin-of-life research is even more befuddled now than it was in 1952 since more questions have evolved than answers, and the voluminous new data regarding the complexity within a cell makes the target much more daunting than it used to be.

Consider the Progress in Other Fields

Consider what has occurred in other fields in the past sixty-seven years since Miller-Urey performed their experiments: human space travel, satellite interconnectivity, unlocking DNA’s code and its precise genetic manipulation, biomedical imaging, automated peptide and nucleotide synthesis, molecular structure determination, silicon device fabrication, integrated circuits, and the Internet, to name just a few. 

By comparison, origin-of-life research has not made any progress whatsoever in addressing the fundamental questions of life’s origin. Two-thirds of a century and all that has been generated are more suggestions on how life [i]might [/i]have formed — suggestions that really show how life [i]probably did not [/i]form. Nothing even resembling a synthetic cellular structure has arisen from its independent components, let alone a living cell. Not even close. 

Perpetual Motion Machines

In 1775, the French Academy in Paris refused to entertain any further proposals for perpetual motion machines; the devices just did not work as advertised. No one knew why not — the mature science of thermodynamics, which gave us a theoretical account for [i]why [/i]the [i]perpetuum mobile [/i]schemes failed, lay nearly one hundred years in the future — but the machines clearly failed. Today we need a French Academy-like directive toward origin-of-life proposals; for, like perpetual motion machines, such proposals just do not work as advertised. Instead we should explore why scientists have failed to produce life. Clearly life can exist — unlike perpetual motion machines, we have the ubiquity of life surrounding us on this planet. But there needs to be a wholly different scientific approach to reveal life’s origin. 

This is an appeal to the origin-of-life research community: Step back and consider the claims within the research, the true state of the field, the retarded state of the science relative to other research areas, and the confusion or delusion of the public regarding life’s origin. Many researchers in origin-of-life organic synthesis are superb scientists. However, overly confident assertions, exaggerated and spread by the over-zealous press, have led to gross public misconceptions regarding what is and is not known concerning the beginning of life.

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

For evolutionists, storytelling is ‘science’. They don’t believe it because they see it, they see it because they believe it!

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

The ‘old’ Plant Kingdom was structured to reflect supposed evolutionary relationships between plant groupings. However, the alleged sequence of evolution of various plants contradicted their actual order of burial in the fossil record!2 (Not to mention the complete absence of any fossilized transitional forms.)

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Addressing the students, I used a measuring cylinder to illustrate how scientific dating works. My picture showed a water tap dripping into the cylinder. It was clearly marked so my audience could see that it held exactly 300 ml of water. The diagram also showed that the water was dripping at a rate of 50 ml per hour.

I asked, ‘How long has the water been dripping into the cylinder?’
Immediately someone called out, “Six hours.”
“Good. How did you work that out?”
“By dividing the amount of water in the cylinder (300 ml) by the rate (50 ml per hour).”
“Excellent,” I said. “See how easy it is to calculate the age of something scientifically? Every dating method that scientists use works exactly the same way. It involves measuring something that is changing with time.”
People began to relax once they understood that the science of dating is not so difficult. Then I surprised them, “The problem is that six hours is the wrong answer.”
They look puzzled and disbelieving.
“I set this experiment up and I can tell you that the water has only been dripping for one hour. Can you tell me what happened?”

Image from stockxpert

After they had composed themselves, someone called out, “The tap was dripping faster in the past?”

“Perhaps,” I said.

“The cylinder was nearly full when you started?”
“Maybe. But can you see what you are doing?” I asked. “In order to calculate an age you made assumptions about the past. You assumed the rate had always been 50 ml per hour and that the cylinder was empty when it started. Based on those assumptions you calculated the time of 6 hours.”
They nodded.
“You were perfectly happy with that answer. Not one of you challenged it.” They agreed.


Then, when I told you the correct answer, do you realize what you did? You quickly changed your assumptions about the past in order to agree with the age I told you.”

Every scientist must first make assumptions about the past before he can calculate an age. If the result seems okay then he will happily accept it. But if it does not agree with other information then he will change his assumptions so that his answer does agree.
It does not matter if the calculated age is too old or too young. There are always many assumptions a scientist can make to get a consistent answer.
Suddenly the lights went on. My audience saw, in a nutshell, the way dating methods work.1 Scientific dating is not a way of measuring but a way of thinking.

[ethnicmogger2]

im not reading all that

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

The junk DNA paradigm wasn’t just an honest mistake, as some evolutionists now claim. It was a purposeful attempt to wrap an evolutionary narrative around conflicting evidence. Dr. Luskin explains: “The concept of junk DNA has discouraged scientists from investigating in research what this non-coding DNA is actually doing. So it has actually hindered our ability to progress in our understanding of the genome and genomics.”

On the flip side, the idea of function in non-coding regions of DNA fits naturally into a design hypothesis.