Science Disproves Evolution

[JTC]

I guess those of us who know evolution isn't real better keep saying it because the schools are still telling kids it's a fact.

It is not a fact and I'm from the last generation that was told the truth. I mean in both HS and then in collage. I took 1 course in Anthropology and I guess that was where it it was discussed. The Prof said it's a failed theory. He said they really expected to find the proof but they never did. According to the scientific method a theory as old as evolution is supposed to be abandoned and new ideas considered and tested. If evolution wasn't our godless world's #1 justification for denying God then by now no self respecting scientist would even discuss it, much less teach it.

I wish all the people who were taught it's a fact could read my mind. You'd know it's false. The real question is, so then why is it still being taught? The website Pahu keeps giving us covers that too. The website also gives resources as to where they get their info from. I spent an afternoon reading much of it and it's undeniable. They aren't making stuff up. The evolutionists are making stuff up. The simple answer to why is money. It's more complicated but that's the quick easy answer. Billions have been spent on evolution and billions will be lost if the world learns there never was proof.  

[Pahu]

Proteins 3

Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed (f). The many attempts to show how life might have arisen on earth have instead shown 
(a) the futility of that effort (g), 
(b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life (h), and 
(c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.

f.     “The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.” D. E. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation,” Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.

Pitman, p. 140.

Duane T. Gish, Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life, ICR Technical Monograph, No. 1 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).

g.     “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick, p. 88.

Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.” He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [See Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers,” Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]

h.    Robert Shapiro, Origins (New York: Bantam Books, 1986).

The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

Organic molecules in life are of two types: proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Nucleic acids, which are incredibly complex, were not produced, nor would any knowledgeable person expect them to be produced.

The protein “building blocks” were merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory. (In 2011, several more amino acids were found in Miller’s old experimental materials, but the more complex amino acids found in life were still missing. See Eric T. Parker et al., “Primordial Synthesis of Amines and Amino Acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-Rich Spark Discharge Experiment,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 March 2011, pp. 1–6.)

Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.

Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness. [See: [Handedness: Left and Right ]

Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

“The story of the slow paralysis of research on life’s origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of origin-of-life studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.” Behe, “Molecular Machines,” pp. 30–31.

Rick Pierson, “Life before Life,” Discover, August 2004, p. 8.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

On 2/21/2018 at 3:00 PM, JTC said:

I guess those of us who know evolution isn't real better keep saying it because the schools are still telling kids it's a fact.

It is not a fact and I'm from the last generation that was told the truth. I mean in both HS and then in collage. I took 1 course in Anthropology and I guess that was where it it was discussed. The Prof said it's a failed theory. He said they really expected to find the proof but they never did. According to the scientific method a theory as old as evolution is supposed to be abandoned and new ideas considered and tested. If evolution wasn't our godless world's #1 justification for denying God then by now no self respecting scientist would even discuss it, much less teach it.

I wish all the people who were taught it's a fact could read my mind. You'd know it's false. The real question is, so then why is it still being taught? The website Pahu keeps giving us covers that too. The website also gives resources as to where they get their info from. I spent an afternoon reading much of it and it's undeniable. They aren't making stuff up. The evolutionists are making stuff up. The simple answer to why is money. It's more complicated but that's the quick easy answer. Billions have been spent on evolution and billions will be lost if the world learns there never was proof.  

Amen!!

[Larry 2]

On 8/5/2016 at 12:26 PM, Pahu said:

Science Disproves Evolution

Really? Does science absolutely prove anything?

1Co 1:27  But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1Co 1:28  And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

Is weather forecasting a science? Need I say more?

[HAZARD]

The Word of God alone disproves evolution. The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. By necessity, evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverb 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

Atheists who support evolution frequently mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be “naturalistic.” Creation, by definition, is beyond the rules of the natural world. Since God cannot be tested, so the argument goes, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science.

Strictly speaking, evolution cannot be observed or tested any more or less than intelligent design, but that does not seem to be an issue with non-believing evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted worldview of naturalism, without alternate explanations being considered.

Neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life can be directly tested or observed. Both creation and evolution require a level of faith to be accepted. We cannot go back in time to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Those who adamantly reject creation do so on grounds that would logically force them to reject evolution as well.

[Pahu]

14 hours ago, Larry 2 said:

Really? Does science absolutely prove anything?

1Co 1:27  But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1Co 1:28  And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

Is weather forecasting a science? Need I say more?

I am not sure I get your point. Science does absolutely prove things, for example, the shape of Earth, the content of water and other materials, etc. And yes, weather forecasting is a science. By studying God's creation, science has produced many benefits. It has also produce nuclear weapons, which can destroy all life on earth, and will, unless Christ ends our madness, which He will (Mt. 24).

[Pahu]

The First Cell 1

If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell (a). 

a. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.Dawkins, pp. 1, 43. 

Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the world’s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer.  Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.

We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Ibid, p. 43.

Here Dawkins states that natural selection, not chance, accounts for this “apparent” design. While natural selection accounts for microevolution, it certainly cannot produce macroevolution. [See "Natural Selection" on page 8.]

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”  Denton, p. 264. 

“Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.”  Ibid. p. 342.

“We have seen that self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution appear too complex to have arisen suddenly from a prebiotic soup. This conclusion applies both to nucleic acid systems and to hypothetical protein-based genetic systems.”   Shapiro, p. 207. 

“We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life.”  Ibid. p. 299.

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348. 

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[one.opinion]

On 3/2/2018 at 8:30 PM, HAZARD said:

The Word of God alone disproves evolution.

The Bible shows us that God is Creator, or in other words, disproves atheistic evolution. I believe it is quite probable that God created through evolution. Many of the arguments against evolution "it is too improbable!" or "life is too complex!" should be reconsidered if evolution is actually a process set in motion by the God of the universe.

 

On 3/2/2018 at 8:30 PM, HAZARD said:

Strictly speaking, evolution cannot be observed or tested any more or less than intelligent design, but that does not seem to be an issue with non-believing evolutionists.

Well, it sort of depends on what you mean by "evolution" in this sentence. Small-scale evolution (heritable change over generations) is observed all the time. Since these changes are directly observable, it simply leads to the conclusion that longer time would allow more dramatic changes. If you are referring to large-scale changes in body morphology and things like that, the time scale (according to evolutionary theory) is far too long for us to directly observe those changes. Fossil records give us clues to what might have happened, but those are indeed not direct observations.

[Pahu]

The First Cell 2

There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins (b).

b . “The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination.” Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine, editor Robert M. Pool (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), p. 7.

“No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides.” Kenyon, p. A-20. 

“If we can indeed come to understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be able to construct one—only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely dares to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 45.

Experts in this field hardly ever discuss publicly how the first cell could have evolved. However, the world’s leading evolutionists know this problem exists. For example, on 27 July 1979, Luther D. Sunderland taped an interview with Dr. David Raup, Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This interview was later transcribed and authenticated by both parties. Sunderland told Raup, “Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum (Natural History)] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American Museum of Natural History] could give me any explanation of the origination of the first cell.”  Dr. Raup replied, “I can’t either.”

“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.” David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406–407.

“Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve.”  Crick, p. 153.

This fascination explains why the “origin of life” topic frequently arises—despite so much evidence showing that it cannot happen by natural processes. Speculations abound.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[JTC]

I love the website Pahu always give the link to. I'm lucky because I was never taught evolution is a fact. However, after I left school I started to think perhaps it is. But then around 1990 I went to a library to find proof it is. Instead I found many books and articles saying the proof was never found. So WHY is it still taught as fact? For the answer click the link I'm providing. It's the same site Pahu gives but a different page. Scroll down and read what's in the yellow box.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html