Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is Not Science
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 270 (12736)
07-04-2002 8:46 AM


Evolution is not science. It is not a testable hypothesis (that life originated from simple molecules) because it is history. Can you go back in time and see what happened? Evolution is a religion. The belief that life came from a primeval soup.
Now tell me about some of the "science" in evolution.
Take Ernst Haeckel's fudging of embryo diagrams.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp
has some pictures
Take ichthyosaurus, a forgery made from plaster.
BBC article about it-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_1059000/1059825.stm
Take peppered moths. Biologists stuck moths onto tree trunks. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks during the day.
Take the supposed reducing atmosphere in early earth. Most evidence points to an oxygen rich atmosphere, as many rocks dated to that time could only form in an oxygen rich atmosphere. It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration.
Then there is homology. Quote Dr Beer, ‘Because homology implies community of descent from a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would provide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered [because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous [and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes’
Then there's archaeopterx.
"as Wells points out, the position of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form is now very much in dispute, and in fact ‘its own ancestors are the subject of one of the most heated controversies in modern science’ (p. 112). Most paleontologists now agree this member of an extinct group of birds15 is not the ancestor of any group of modern birds, nor is it a link between reptiles and birds. Evolutionists conclude from cladistic studies (i.e. of shared common features) that bird-like dinosaurs would have lived in the Cretaceous period, which according to evolutionary dating methods was long after Archaeopteryx had supposedly become extinct. That leaves evolutionists back at square one: where are those countless missing links required by the theory, had birds evolved from reptiles"
Take Darwin's finches-Recent evidence shows that the supposed different species can reproduce with each other. A recent scientist (I don't remember who) found the supposedly different species mate. Also, the species are not locationally isolated. The species are found on all of the islands.
Fourwinged fruit flies-
"Geneticist Ed Lewis showed that three strains of laboratory mutant fruit flies could be interbred to produce four winged flies. The balancers or ‘halteres’ required for flight stability in the third thoracic segment were replaced by two new wings. The evolution-oriented textbooks use this to claim random mutations provide some useful changes on occasion, which natural selection then favours.
The exceeding unlikelihood of three such mutations, introduced in the laboratory, is never mentioned. More serious is that no muscles are attached to these wings and a hopelessly non-aerodynamic creature results, which could never survive nor mate in free nature. Duplicate organs may be interesting, but what is needed is evidence that novel functionality or organs can develop by random and unguided processes."
Fossil horses-Note that there are huge differences between the supposed species. Way to many. There are no transitional fossils found between these.
Piltdown man is a famous example. "For over 40 years the Piltdown fraud had persuaded the leading scientists a missing link had confirmed man’s descent from ape-like ancestors. The skull belonged to a true human and the jaw fragment from a modern orang-utan. It turned out that the latter had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. It took that long to discover this none-too-elaborate hoax because evolutionists thought they had evidence which they very much wished to believe. "
There are many other hoaxes by evolutionists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 11:13 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 254 by TrueCreation, posted 07-05-2002 5:50 PM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 255 by Peter, posted 07-10-2002 6:30 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 256 by nator, posted 07-10-2002 7:49 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024