Evolution Disproven.

I think most of this post has been covered, but I'll add
my comments too ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:
I don't understand why people are still being brainwashed by this false evolution hypothesis... here's some evidence against it...

​

LAWS OF SCIENCE

​

1. No living organism can become something superior to itself.

---

Evolution is not about 'becoming superior' only about change
brought about by environmental pressure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

2. Chance cannot cause anything.

---

No (as mentioned by someone else) ... but if there is a
probability of something happen then that event CAN happen
no matter how remote you might beleive the chance to be.The 'chance' of flipping a coin to heads is 1/2, that doesn't
mean that flipping a coin 100 times will result in 50 heads
and 50 tails.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

3. Something cannot come from nothing. (Spontaneous Generation)

---

In respect of evolution, no one is saying that it did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

4. Things move from order to disorder, not the other way around.

---

Explain this more ... what do you mean by order and disorder ?In my understanding of those terms, in a metaphysical sense,
order is a sub-set of disorder. That's just my opinion ...
one of my more whacky one's perhaps, but ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

All of these proven laws of science contradict evolution.

​

Also, some more stuff... Uranus and Venus (I'm pretty sure it's those) are moving in retrograde motion... how could this happen? A "big bang" would make everything rotate/spin the same way...

​

Charles Darwin even admitted that he was randomly throwing out theories and that evolution "could not be true..."

​

Let's have a cool discussion here... evolution v creation...

​

Thanks guys!

​

BTW: Mod, I read that post... sorry about that, won't post the same thing again...

---

I'll give this a go ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:
K... this really is laughable, it's just so funny to see how you guys actually believe this lie (evolution)

​

1. I made a big mistake by saying "living organism." What I meant to say is, "No species can become superior to itself."
Ex: A dog can't make or become a human... etc, you get the point...

---

What makes you sure that a human is superior to a dog ?I mean, most humans work their butts off for the majority of
their life, and don't get to spend more than a few days a
year relaxing ... whereas most dog's spend their entire life
sleeping, eating, playing, and (if they are lucky) making
little dogs.Flippancy aside though ... evolution is not about progression
or superiority. It's about adapting to a changing emvironment,
and we CAN observe this in the small. More dark peppered moths than
light when the trees were covered in coal, speciation of
finches in the Gallapogos islands, comparitive anatomy of the
ear oscicles across fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal, etc.It might not convince you of macro-evolution, but then there are
the more recent genetic studies to watch.Will you at least concede that speciation can happen (most YEC's
don't refute that ... and that's a start).

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

2. Do you really think that an extremely small dot of nothing exploded and created all this intelligence, this whole universe? I mean, think about it!

---

That's not evolution. Maybe God DID speak the universe into
existence ... the question here is about the origin of DIVERSITY
of life on Earth. Confine yourself to that line of thought
before going further back in time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

3. There is nothing wrong with Kent Hovind... fake PHD? Gimme a break.. just cause he's smart doesn't mean you evolutionists can insult him...

---

I don't know much about Kent Hovind ... what is his PhD in and
where did he earn it ?Perhaps you could find that out and let me know.I don't insult anyone (or at least I try not to, but when someone
pulls out on me when I'm on my motorbike I might let that one
slide a little )

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

4. Evolution is a hypothesis, NOT the theory they claim it to be.

---

I believe evolution IS a theory. A hypothesis (someone correct
me if I'm wrong) is an idea based upon first observation of a
phenomen. E.g. Darwin saw the finches and tortoises on the
Gallapogus islands (or was it iguanas ?) and thought, hmm...
seems to me that there must be some kind of natural selection
going on here. He then thought about what that would mean,
and what other evidence he should expect to find.Others, likewise made predictions and sought to refute them.In time, and under peer review, evidence in favour grew, and
a Theory of Evolution was proposed.Like any other theory it is open to refutation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

5. An evolutionist (I believe his last name was Haecker or something) made a big book about evolution, years ago... he was showing the similarities of different species by their embryos... it turns out he actually faked the pics of the embryos... he finally figured out how idiotic evolution is.

---

Unsrupulous people on both sides of the debate will present mis-leading or false evidence to support their position.Don't tar everyone with the same bruch ... Jesus didn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

6. Do you really believe that we came from something so small and dumb to something so big and intelligent? I mean, come on guys, you have brains, think about it... evolution CAN NOT be true, and is not true.

---

First, just because it is difficult to beleive doesn't mean it isn't
true.People once found it difficult to beleive that the earth wasn't flat,
but that turned out to be true.Second, we don't understand intelligence, nor what makes intelligence
happen in an organism ... so we can make no comment on the
feasibility of our 'intelligence' evolving from less
intelligent sources.Some slime mould exhibit a primitive intelligence ... if I can dig
out the article I will ... in terms of navigating a maze to find
food. Contentious maybe ... but it illustrates that we cannot
fully comment on phenomena we do not fully understand yet.We can only create and test hypotheses and theories.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

7. Charles Darwin admitted this about his evolution hypothesis... I read about it in some book, can't remember its name...

---

You really need to back that up.BUT it may have been a political move to restore his position
in society. He WAS under an enormous pressure to recant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

8. If you get the Philadelphia Trumpet, read their article of the EVOLUTION OF FRAUD... it just came out.

---

Sorry ... live in the UK. Perhaps you could summarise it for us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

9. There is evidence of a huge catastrophe (the Flood).. for example, there are fish in places where water has never flowed... there is real evidence of this.

---

There are numerous flood events recorded in the geologic record,
but none on the global scale as recorded in Genesis, and certainly
not at the time assumed by a literal interpretation of the Bible
(whether that be 2500 or 3500 BCE).There are also numerous flood stories from many cultures, many
of which share elements of the Great Flood, and some (the sumerian
account and that in the Hinud Veda's) which pre-date the Bible.That's pre-date within the same context as the dating of the bible
itself i.e. by archeologists and other scholars.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

10. How dare you compare God with earthly things? Duh, thats why he's called God... of course he can create anything from nothing... thus the name God!

---

Faith and belief can be wonderful things, but even Jesus argued
against dogmatically following the religion handed us by the
preists ... and the jewish priests had him nailed to a cross
for it.Argue your position from evidence, don't descend into outrage ...
Jesus taught tolerance after all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

Evolution = Trash.

---

You are welcome to any opinion you wish ... but in a debate you
must support your claims.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

FINALLY: it is a huge mistake to even call evolution science. It is neither observable or reproducabe (or recreatable, whatever )

---

I'm not sure that anyone has directly observed an electron ...
is partical physics science or not ?Evolution IS observable ... the theory stems from empirical evidence
that can be interpreted as evolution.We reproduce micro-evolution all the time (selective breeding),
and some genetic experiments (mentioned elsewhere) have indicated
that a change in a single protein can inhibit leg development
in shrimp (I think). Given a little more time and effort we
MIGHT be able to reproduce evolutionary effects.But, would that then fall foul of an 'AH but there was intelligence
behind that experiment' argument ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:

Thanks.

---

Your welcome.