Evolution Contradicts Logic and is Impossible 2 (Reformed)

Evolution simply does not occur and never has and here's why:
Recent Problems with Evolution
ForbiddenQuotes From Evolutionists who admit Evolution has no proof and cannot be proven
Anointed-One.netHuge Problems with Evolution that "Scientists" simply overlook
ForbiddenWhy do Evolutionist ignore the studies of Zuckerman?
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/brya...n/Sceptic19.htm50 Reasons Evolution is Wrong
TrueAuthority.com - Creation vs Evolution - Why Evolution Is Wrong10 Reasons Evolution is Wrong
Ten Reasons Evolution is WrongWhy Evolution is Wrong:
ErrorThe Origin of Matter
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma1.htmObjections of the Doctrine of Evolution
http://www.bibleprobe.org/objection.htmlEVOLUTION: THE SECRET BEHIND THE PROPAGANDA
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchCreation is supported by more Scientific Facts than Evolution
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtmlEvolutionists on the Verge of Distinction
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v6i9f.htmEvolution Contradicts Logic
Evolution contradicts logic. Let me ask you a question. If you were walking down the street and you found an fully functional computer just sitting there on the side of the road, what would you believe about it? Would you believe that it just happened by random chance or that it had a creator who not only designed it but built it? Of course you would know that someone designed it and built it, because it would be impossible for it to just appear by random chance. Evolutionists believe something very similar occured, they believe that the particles that makeup the universe such as atoms, just randomly appeared by pure chance. Now, we all know that's impossible, it's more supernatural than it is science.Now go look in the mirror. Do you realize that what you see is a trillion times more complex than the most powerful computer man has ever made? Yet evolution would have you believe it (you) were not designed or built by anyone, you just happened by random chance. Not only are they claiming that one fully functioning computer happened by random chance but two did, since they were able to recreate themselves sexually and that takes two at least.Evolution uses time as the great equalizer. What I mean is that they claim evolution too billions of years. That makes it so slow that we can't possible expect to see any evidence in our lives. Okay, here is another logic question for you. Take a watch, any watch and carefully take every part apart and put them in a paper bag. Now you know that when you started you had a working watch. You know that all the parts are there and you know that they all fit together. Now close the bag and start shaking it. How long would it take before you would have a completely functioning watch again? All the parts are there already, you know they fit, you know they work, so how long before it randomly puts itself back together and starts working. I won't even make you wait until it randomly sets its own time correctly, just until it starts working again. How about a year? How about a hundred years? How about 4.3 billion years? Do you see my point? Random chance is not going to put all the correct parts back together yet evolution wants you to believe that is what happened and they did not even start with one (much less all) of the right pieces. The billion years are just to fool you.
The is actually no proof whatsoever that the Earth is 4.3 Billion Years old. Evolution requires at least 4 billion years to make the changes in organic lifeforms possible, if the Earth was 15,000-20,000 years old, Evolution would be practically impossible, and is anyway even if the Earth is 4 Billion Years old.Notice that I have not used the Bible once yet? That is because evolution is illogical. I don't need the Bible to disprove it. Evolution takes more blind faith to believe than the Bible ever will, yet many people blindly believe it and refuse to even look at the Bible.Look at all the flowers on a spring day. Look at all the different kinds and colors, etc... They all randomly come from the same primordial ooze we did? Nice how evolution with no intelligent mind behind it made bees to cross pollinate the plants don't you think? Since evolution claims that only the strongest and wises of species will evolve (survival of the fittest) aren't we lucky that some managed to survive just so we more advanced species could eat them? Good thing plants are stupid and evolved into edible things too. Evolution would dictate that all plants become poisonous so that they are not eaten, but boy I'm glad most of the plants did not think of that.I am not trying to make fun of what you believe, I am just trying to show you that logically what you believe is wrong. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim there is not intellect behind what happens and yet claim that things happened in a logical intelligent way. If evolution is true and that is why some animals evolved into poisonous animals, then why not all of them? If that had happened all life would have died!! Yet evolution would at least have proved itself.There are countless more examples I could give you. For example; did you know that there are petrified trees standing straight up in the layers of the Grand Cannon? That means that the tree which is doing so must have existed for millions of years, because it is standing in and through millions of years of layers of earth. Of course another possibility is that it died standing up and was buried quickly in those layers as they settled out after a great flood. Oh, but that would mean those layers are not really millions of years old.Evolution is basically no more scientific than a fairy tale:In children’s fairy tales, we are told:
frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = princeIn modern "science" textbooks we are told:
frog + time = princeAnd some more links:Why Does the University Fear Phillip Johnson?http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedra...l/youngeart.htmhttp://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/CT_IH.htmlhttp://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho14.htmhttp://www1.minn.net/~science/experts.htmBottom Line: Evolutionists claim to be logical, yet their own theory(which has not been proven to be true in any way, shape, or form) contradicts logic.

Let me ask you a question - what if I showed you a fully functional high-pass filter - a sophisticated piece of electronics; so much more sophisticated than other high-pass filters that we had literally no idea how it really worked - wouldn't you say that it was so sophisticated that it had to have been designed?What if I could prove it hadn't been designed at all? What if I could prove that it had come about as a result of random recombination, mutation, and survival of the "fittest"?I can do all that, because people are using evolution to build circuits better than any human could design. No webpage found at provided URL: www-personal.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/SI110/readings/EvoInventions.pdf[Fixed link. --Admin]Now, doesn't that perhaps tell you that what would will and will not believe has nothing at all to do with what is? Just because you're unwilling to believe complexity can evolve from simplicity doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Because we see it happen all the time.Also, are you going to continue to cut-and-paste from websites without attributing the original source? Don't assume that we're all so sheltered or stupid we haven't seen this exact argument, word-for-word, several times before. Quoting the words of others as your own is plagarism and against the forum guidelines. And it certainly doesn't say much for the intellectual honesty of creationists.[This message has been edited by Admin, 06-16-2003]

You can make your little accusations all day. Doesn't mean they're true. BTW, The Link doesn't work, so I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. I don't need to see the link to tell you that a circuit board doesn't just appear out of nowhere all of the sudden.
Just as my thread says, You're contradicting logic.

although you just paste most of thisChat Line Guide: All the Benefits and Phone Help-LinesThis is simply a modernised version of Wiliam Paley's watch analogy, and if you take some time to read about the errors in his argument then you will find that it applies to the computer analogy too.

That's because it's more like 4.56 billion years old. There are about five entirely distinct lines of evidence that point to that fact - they're very well documented in G Brent Dalrymple's book "The Age of the Earth." You might try your library.And didn't Admin ask you nicely in the other thread to limit yourself to two or three related topics?

As I said before, The computer analogy is nothing. Why don't you read what else I've said, or maybe you just don't want to because Evolution simply cannot explain them.

FFGF, when did you last see a watch that was capable of reproduction?

FFG,Besides the fact that you are blatantly abusing the forum guidelines (and I am not sure that you made any attempt at all to edit your first post), you are shamelessly plaigerizing with falicious arguments unworthy of "much" attention, woefully ignorant of much that has previously been discussed here multiple times by various personalities, limit your replies to accusations of ignorance instead of substantial logical rebuttals that would certainly place you more firmly in the worthy debater camp and sadly just overall ignorant or misinformed of what science is and what it can prove or disprove.Surely (though it may be unreasonable for me to think so), you would recognize the difference between a watch and any biological system. Besides the obviousness of living versus non-living, and organic versus inorganic chemistry, there is also much difference in their complexities. A watch can not reproduce, neither sexually or asexually, its manufacture lends it to little more than a measurer of time units (i use mine as a paperweight ), nor re-grow an arm if it looses one . There is in chemistry certain large molecules with hydrophobic and hydrophillic ends (an example being lipids!) that when small quantities are placed in aqueous solutions form aggragations of spherical shape (imagine that!) with the hydrophobic ends inside the sphere and the hydrophillic ends on the aqueous side. These aggragations are malleable yet strong enough to hold together in order to create a seperate environment within themselves. If you can imagine that these molecules can "swallow" through casual contact other complex molecules you have the beginning of a system that in perhaps billions of years has the possibility of reproduction.
I would recomend that before you begin any substantial debate where there is a plethora of knowledgable individuals, you spend some learning what the other side has to say about the subject being debatted. Study, learn become informed, otherwise you come off as being plainly ignorant.

It's funny how you all focus on the easy parts of my thread(watch), why not take a look at some of the links and address them, that is, if you can. LOL

No, FFG, you pick what you think are the hardest parts to answer. Pick them one at at time, start one thread and work through it.You accuse us of picking the easiest. You pick the very hardest one or the one you're most comfortable working with. That should give you every advantage. If you're not willing to do more than paste a mess I'm sure not willing to waste time on you.You might want to do some research yourself to get ahead a bit as well. Good luck!You might also want to be aware that you are being mislead and even lied to by some of your sources. You should pick where you start very carefully.

What does this mean? Does it mean you agree that the "watch" argument is easily knocked off. That since watches don't breed you recognize that it is a silly analogy for living things? Is that what it means?So let's see a hard one? Your pick!

What would be so very difficult about picking out, say, five particular arguments from all those links that are better than your watch analogy, and presenting them for discussion here? A paragraph of your own describing each, and a link to the specific bit you want to talk about, would be very helpful. Otherwise, I can imagine being here for many, many posts with your only reply being "It's funny how you all focus on the easy parts of my thread(item), why not take a look at some of the others and address them, that is, if you can. LOL"[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 06-15-2003]

Think now............. Maybe there's a reason Why I would say that....... hmmmmm
Use your brain, you obviously aren't if you believe in "Evolution"

Oh dear.sometimes I don’t know if people are just having a bit of fun. It would be entertaining to make grand inaccurate comments on a subject which one has little knowledge, then sit back and watch the constituency stir like an ants nest!Well I will take you seriously. Its good that you have some interest in biology. I encourage you to study the natural world. Since you have obviously not applied yourself to the field. I will make a few comments.
1. Evolution isn’t about survival of the fittest. That is a component of the theory of natural selection. That in itself being one element of evolution.
2. The production of plant toxins is the result of energy consuming metabolic pathways. An organism that has to produce a toxin isn’t necessarily fitter. Indeed if not required to for persistence, instead of producing toxins (or thorns, woody leaves, urticating hairs etc.) a plant could utilise its resources for seed production or other beneficial traits. A practical example of this concept is a decrease in resistance allele frequency in bacteria removed from exposure to antibiotics.
3. I almost forgot, thanks for quoting the bible, it’s not a scientific text.

Are you here to discuss, or to call people names?Anyway I'd think twice before telling people to "use your brain" if all my posts so far had been other people's work. Maybe you should use your own brain, pick one topic, and present your own argument. Or are you such a "Follower" (as in your username) that you can't think for yourself?btw, to respond to your earlier points: Sorry, that's exactly what happened. Or rather, the design for the circuit appeared out of nowhere through a process of heritable, random mutation and selection of the fittest circuits. The circuit itself was constructed from that design, and worked perfectly - better than the same circuit designed by humans.Sorry you couldn't read the link; it's a pdf file so make sure your computer is set to read them. It's a great article. Naw, just your preconceptions about how the universe works. As it turns out, though, your preconceptions are wrong.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-15-2003][This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-16-2003]