Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm ^ | 2008 | Biblelife.org

Posted on 02/14/2009 10:55:11 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

(Snip)

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

(Snip)

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.

(Snip)

The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally toward disorder or chaos, unless changed by an intelligent being.

(Excerpt) Read more at biblelife.org ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: bible; creation; darwinism; evolution; thisisembarrassing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-196 next last

1 posted on 02/14/2009 10:55:11 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

Complete misunderstanding of what a Scientific Theory is, right out of the gate.

Save your brains cells and don't read any further.

2 posted on 02/14/2009 10:59:59 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

I will say nothing further until this is moved out of religion forum.


3 posted on 02/14/2009 11:01:09 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

What on earth are you talking about? Why, just last week, I saw a fence lizard, flopping around on useless protowings, planning an escape from fire ants in a few million years. < /sarc>


4 posted on 02/14/2009 11:02:06 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Don’t forget the example of the yucca moth and the yucca plant.The plant can’t survive without the moth and vice versa,yet supposedly they developed millions of years apart,


5 posted on 02/14/2009 11:05:29 AM PST by screaming eagle2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I’m kinda in agreement. There are some points worth discussion, but to simply toss the whole Darwin debate out the front door...just won’t work.

Most folks would like a tidy...one-answer-explains-all concept, and it becomes difficult. By the time you toss in magnetic variation, the simple wobble of the earth, and a thousand other odd characteristics of this planet and its inhabitants...one is lead back to a wonderfully imperfect world with evolution at various points.


6 posted on 02/14/2009 11:07:29 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

The Southern Baptist Council on Family Life found 88% of children raised in evangelical homes leave the church after high school, never to return.

If this is the nonsense that you are feeding them, it’s not too hard to see why.


7 posted on 02/14/2009 11:12:45 AM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1

The stats on rejection of macroevolution after high school are rather impressive, too.

It’s also not hard to see why.


8 posted on 02/14/2009 11:21:34 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: qam1

What a horrible statistic to use to suit your purpose. Quite nasty. Par for the couse from evolutionists. No rational or scientific argument, so all you have left is smears and nastiness.

There are many factors, not the least of which is the brainwashing they receive from leftist educators.


9 posted on 02/14/2009 11:22:17 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Evolution cannot become a law because it is too complex to be simplified to a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always under the same conditions.

I still don’t follow how those other statements refute evolution.


10 posted on 02/14/2009 11:23:36 AM PST by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

“I still don’t follow how those other statements refute evolution”

An admission of ignorance! That’s a start. :) Why not start by reading the page, then if you have any specific questions, ask them.

These things are pretty complex, and can’t generally be summed up in a few paragraphs.


11 posted on 02/14/2009 11:26:23 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong

I started floating off the ground when Newton's theory on gravity were proved to be incomplete.

12 posted on 02/14/2009 11:29:43 AM PST by KarlInOhio (On 9/11 Israel mourned with us while the Palestinians danced in the streets. Who should we support?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Hmm ~ I gather you have no idea what "Evangelical" means.

That's not at all unusual among Leftwingtards and pseudoscientists (and maybe some others), so it's time for a "correction".

The word originally came into use as a comprehensive description of Protestant, Reform Church, and Anabaptist movements.

That's pretty much what it still means.

If 88% of Evangelicals left Evangelical "church" AFTER becoming adults, the Evangelicals would have disappeared 5 centuries ago.

You may well be confusing the term with "Holy Roller".

BTW, when you get into figuring out what "Holy Rollers" are, don't confuse them with "Snake Handlers". Those bad boys actually handle snakes ~ it's not just a metaphor with them.

In fact, let me encourage you to visit a Snake Handler church. You might learn something ~ like how to hold a rattle snake such that you don't get bit too many times ~ always good thing to know.

13 posted on 02/14/2009 11:30:25 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: qam1
This is why all Southern Baptists need to exit the public schools, begin homeschooling or Christian schooling, and quit receiving this crappy teaching about evolution. See Exodus Mandate. Jesus believed in Genesis 1 through 11. Jesus believed in Adam and Eve and Noah's flood as literal events. All of the great doctrines of the Church come from Genesis 1 through 11. Marriage, the Fall, the Flood, the Tower of Babel. If evolution is true, then the Bible isn't true.
14 posted on 02/14/2009 11:39:20 AM PST by CompProgrammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

“A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong

I started floating off the ground when Newton’s theory on gravity were proved to be incomplete.”

Gravity didn’t fail to meet a challenge. Although the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft indicates our understanding may need some adjustment.


15 posted on 02/14/2009 11:42:12 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CompProgrammer

Yes, all Bible-believing Christians should homeschool.

The best arrangement must be to get together with a few likeminded christian friends, although that isn’t always possible


16 posted on 02/14/2009 11:44:10 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
All I know is empirical.

And what I see is devolution, not evolution. (Unless the concepts are interchangeable?)

Look at Congress.

17 posted on 02/14/2009 11:56:01 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Darwin is wrong but many of the skeptics are just as wrong.


18 posted on 02/14/2009 11:56:41 AM PST by Maelstorm (When the people find that they can vote themselves money,that will herald the end of the republic-BF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

Which means that at some point almost all cheetahs were killed, and the existing cheetahs are descendents of a very few related individuals.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists.

A bald-faced lie. The theory of evolution does not and is not intended to explain the overall origin of life.

The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving.

Most changes in a genome will be to the detriment of the individual. A very few will lead to an increased survivability. The fact that the former will greatly outnumber the latter is consistent with the theory of evolution.

Species are becoming extinct, not evolving.

First, if a species' environment changes more rapidly than the species can adapt, it will die out. Again, this is not inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Secondly, on what basis is the assertion "Species are becoming extinct, not evolving." asserted? Where is the evidence for this.

Order will always move naturally toward disorder or chaos, unless changed by an intelligent being.

The first phrase is a restatement of the laws of thermodynamics. But localized increase in order (e.g., the creation of a honeycomb) need not be directed by intelligence, unless you think for example that honeybees are sentient.

19 posted on 02/14/2009 11:59:25 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy.

Agreed. It takes someone as belligerently ignorant as Ben Stein even to come up with something like that. Certainly not something a biologist would claim.

20 posted on 02/14/2009 12:01:19 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

The person who wrote this was a complete moron.


21 posted on 02/14/2009 12:02:40 PM PST by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RonF
"Which means that at some point almost all cheetahs were killed, and the existing cheetahs are descendents of a very few related individuals"

the way you take a fleeting assumption based on nothing and state it as if it were fact is absolutely shocking. and unfortunately is very represntative of evolutionism.

If a real scientist were to pull random thoughts from their posterior & call it fact they would be drummed out of town. Not so for the evolutionist.
22 posted on 02/14/2009 12:04:08 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
Gravity didn’t fail to meet a challenge.

Oh yes it did. General relativity works in certain situations where Newtonian gravity doesn't (although it's perfectly adequate for everyday use).

23 posted on 02/14/2009 12:15:38 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Did I say Newtonian gravity?


24 posted on 02/14/2009 12:17:16 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Scientic FACTS ARE wrong.

Just the grammar check. What happened to good journalism?


25 posted on 02/14/2009 12:18:08 PM PST by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1

Can you provide a URL or other reference to the source of that statistic?


26 posted on 02/14/2009 12:18:49 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RonF
The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher

This is an allusion to entropy, which increases in the universe as a whole, or in a closed system. Planet Earth is an open system which is supplied with huge amounts of energy from outside (the sun), something which both creationists and global warming nuts fail to consider.

27 posted on 02/14/2009 12:23:24 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
Did I say Newtonian gravity?

General relativity also fails at the quantum scale. There is no theory of gravity that works at all scales.

28 posted on 02/14/2009 12:25:24 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible

the is is right..


29 posted on 02/14/2009 12:27:03 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

If you didn’t personally, the second sentence quoted in your post did, so the discussion was presumably about Newtonian gravity at that point. Besides, I wouldn’t be completely surprised if General Relativity is superceded at some point in the future.


30 posted on 02/14/2009 12:27:33 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

energy does not equal entropy. energy does not provide information. that’s something you learn in the first year of elementary science


31 posted on 02/14/2009 12:28:31 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Nothing in the article displays evidence of an interest in even basic science, facts, or proof.

The biggest problem for the bible-based creationist effort is that it hinges on defending a very narrowly defined statement: God created all of the universe, fully formed as we know it now, in six earth days. It was also done exactly as the King James (or whatever) version of the bible states it... in English.

Science is not a competing religion (there are no shrines to the ‘time god’), it’s a way of discovering more about the world around us. Shouting down science is not a method of proving a point, it’s a way of declaring that you’re not interested in learning more. If creation in fact happened exactly as described by the bible, scientists will eventually uncover evidence to unambiguously support that position. If your faith isn’t strong enough to wait, it isn’t the fault of the evil time god.


32 posted on 02/14/2009 12:34:36 PM PST by jz638
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CompProgrammer
I get very frustrated when people want to tie the fate of Christianity to a literal interpretation of Genesis. You are painting yourself and our culture into a corner, friend. Jesus made only casual references to Adam, Noah, etc. to make points. He never said anything remotely like this: "You must believe God made the earth in 6 days, or you will not be saved." He did say the crucial test was believing in Him. And not all the great doctrines of the church come from Genesis. The Gospel is not in there, except in allusions and foreshadowings, like the statement that "the seed of the woman [i.e the Son of Man] will bruise the serpent's [Satan's] heel."

The New Testament says that scripture is useful for instruction, reproof, etc., not that it is a science text or even a history book (although it is full of verifiable historical material).

33 posted on 02/14/2009 12:36:27 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CompProgrammer
Whether or not evolution is true is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to understanding the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, some of which is in the Bible.

It's the Islamofascists who think God handed down a full text of truths. They call it the Koran. Since none of us are Moslems, we need not adopt such a belief.

34 posted on 02/14/2009 12:37:46 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Um, maybe that’s why they call it a theory instead of a law.

Thanks for making Christians everywhere look like mouth-breathing morons. Atheist love the Young Earth Creationists.


35 posted on 02/14/2009 12:39:00 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Congress is a special case ~ they prove that you can crossbreed a goat and fencepost.


36 posted on 02/14/2009 12:39:03 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

I didn’t equate energy with entropy. I said that the 2nd law applies only to closed systems, which the earth is not. Closed means no imported energy or matter. Entropy was defined in thermodynamics well before concepts relating it to information were introduced.


37 posted on 02/14/2009 12:40:50 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out; RonF
Gotta' be real careful with the Cheetah thing. The fact they are so closely related at the molecular level suggests that when it comes to the Southern coasts of Africa, India and Australia, there may have been a Great Flood which could reach the height of mountains at about the time the first big Antarctic meltdown began circa 15,000 years ago.
38 posted on 02/14/2009 12:42:38 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jz638

“It was also done exactly as the King James (or whatever) version of the bible states it... in English.”

Who says that? Where’s that from?

“If creation in fact happened exactly as described by the bible, scientists will eventually uncover evidence to unambiguously support that position. If your faith isn’t strong enough to wait, it isn’t the fault of the evil time god.”

Odd stuff. “If your faith is strong enought to wait”?? For science to catch up with fact? That’s a very odd way of thinking. Science is catching up, slowly. For centuries mockers mocked the idea that the flood “came up from the great deep”, believing the Earth to be a solid mass. Now in 2007 they find an arctic ocean’s worthy of water in the mantle, and evidence of a global catastrophic flood 4400 years ago is mounting up.

Your statement is baffling. You expect people to aquiesce to whatever “consensus science” says, whether it’s right or wrong?


39 posted on 02/14/2009 12:46:23 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out; hellbender
energy does not equal entropy. energy does not provide information. that’s something you learn in the first year of elementary science

I read what hellbender wrote, and your response has no relationship to it.

Your first sentence was bizarre. Your second sentence is flat-out wrong: energy does provide information. Ever seen that big yellow ball in the sky? We know what it looks like. How do we know what it looks like? Because of information sent in the form of energy like photons and magnetic field strength, to name a few.

40 posted on 02/14/2009 12:48:50 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
There are many factors, not the least of which is the brainwashing they receive from leftist educators.

This is why the hypocritical Free Republic hardcore evolutionists fanatically worship the Big Government Public School monopoly.

(the hardcore evolutionists on Free Republic are as fanatically devout to the Big Government Public School monopoly as any left wing Democrat)

41 posted on 02/14/2009 12:49:43 PM PST by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

“Um, maybe that’s why they call it a theory instead of a law.”

Not according to some posters on here. It’s “fact” according to them, and apparently to you.

“Thanks for making Christians everywhere look like mouth-breathing morons.”

So you, a Christian, believe in evolution. So why did Jesus come to die on the cross? Did Adam sin, and all mankind bear and continue his sin? But what was before Adam? Did death not enter the world through sin?

If you can’t believe that God created the world as it says in the Bible then I really don’t see how you can believe that Jesus was born of a virgin or that Jesus fed 5000 men and their families with a few loaves & fishes. That’s all “mouth breather” stuff isn’t it?


42 posted on 02/14/2009 12:52:33 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
I get very frustrated when people want to tie the fate of Christianity to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Actually, the young-earthers don't even hold to a literal meaning of the creation story. The word "yom" has many meanings, ranging from part of a day, to a day, to a lifetime, to a very long and unspecified length of time.

The Young-Earth Creationists insist that "yom" has to mean a literal 24-hour day in the creation story. Yet there is nothing in the Bible that points to that notion.

Young-Earthers use a bad interpretation of scripture and try to twist science to match their beliefs. When people laugh at them, they believe that they're being persecuted for the cause of Christ. In reality, they're being persecuted for being ignorant.

43 posted on 02/14/2009 12:54:04 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

“energy like photons and magnetic field strength”

magnetic field strength is not energy. Go find out what magnetic field strength is, is your job number 1 here.

adding energy to a system does not provide that system with information.


44 posted on 02/14/2009 12:57:27 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.

Undoubtedly, however, the Stray Man is an example of (un)Intelligent Design.

45 posted on 02/14/2009 1:02:36 PM PST by Paradox (When the left have no one to villainize, they'll turn on each other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Hah! And the Straw Man too!
46 posted on 02/14/2009 1:06:14 PM PST by Paradox (When the left have no one to villainize, they'll turn on each other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
If you can’t believe that God created the world as it says in the Bible...[yada, yada, yada, can't really be a Christian, etc., etc., etc.]

Wrong. I am 100% creationist. I believe that God created the entire universe out of nothing just like it says in the Bible. What I don't believe is that "yom" means a literal 24-hour day.

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

God has spoken to us not only in his word, but also in general revelation through his creation. All of the scientific evidence points to an earth that is around 4.5 billion years old and a universe that is around 14 billion years old.

When you deny what God has shown in his creation, and deny a perfectly legitimate interpretation of Genesis that agrees 100% with God's general revelation, then you are saying that God has lied to us through his creation. Yet, as usual, you Young-Earthers are the ones who claim that those of who recognize those facts aren't real Christians.

47 posted on 02/14/2009 1:06:21 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
magnetic field strength is not energy.

Really? I have degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering from very well-respected, nationally known universities. I have had a career in science for almost 25 years.

Here are the equations for determining the energy density in a magnetic field.

So tell me about your scientific credentials and why they led you to make such a perfectly ludicrous statement?

48 posted on 02/14/2009 1:11:41 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
Yet there is nothing in the Bible that points to that notion.

Well yes there is, and since this "bible" that you are referencing is the 6000 year old Torah of Judaism, you should take the argument up with the Orthodox of that religion not Christians, we got it from them.

49 posted on 02/14/2009 1:12:17 PM PST by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

“What I don’t believe is that “yom” means a literal 24-hour day.”

The age of the earth isn’t the question here. Evolution is.


50 posted on 02/14/2009 1:12:38 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-196 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson