by TaylorSandbek on Wed May 28, 2008 5:28 pm
Here are some more evidences of evolution being untrue.
testing of the brain has proven that if we learned something new every second, it would take more then three million years to exhaust our brain's capacity. How, if evolution only evolves to what we need, did it make our brains capable of this?
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies
Have you ever heard of the Miller experiment? It was at the University of Chicago where they attempted to create life in the laboratory, thus proving evolution. However, they cheated by excluding oxygen (By the law of diffusion, oxygen HAS ALWAYS been in the atmosphere, or it would not be today). They excluded oxygen because they knew that oxygen would oxidize (which creates rust and decay) the material and they would not form life successfully. So, after cheating to overcome the oxygen hurtle, they STILL failed, by creating only a maximum of 8 amino acids (not even half of what is required to make a single simple life form).
Also, have you ever studied the structure of a DNA molecule? Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine are the four base molecules needed to create a DNA strand, along with the end-molecules of deoxyribose. Each molecule boasts a number of atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Yes OXYGEN. so, the Miller experiment failed to create life because oxygen was not administered, and it would have failed because oxygen cannot simple be "added" to a chemicle and expected to create life. Also, there are 20 amino acids on a strand, and since 200 are needed for life, the chance of random mutation occuring in the precise order for evolution to occure would be, in the simplest aspect, 20 to the 200th power!!! So, those chances are roughly .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 !!!
Evolution is statistically impossible. Also, variations within a single kind of animal (kind means they can produce offspring together--cat and dog are not the same kind, but coyote and dog ARE because they are able to produce offspring) anyway, those variations within a single animal kind are not evolution. (If changing around the letters in the word "CHRISTMAS" cannot create "ZEBRA" then why can't the evolutionists figure out that random mutations are LIMITED to within a single animal kind). Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Also, finding a skull that is half-human and half-ape DOES NOT prove evolution (it just proves that there was an animal that had both ape and human characteristics).
Besides, if evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? Also, if evolution is true, the did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills?
Evolution Is Impossible
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy—also known as the second law of thermodynamics—stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems—in fact all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found—not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the `first law'), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.5
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists—that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.6
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermo-dynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution never occurred in the past, is not occurring at present, and could never happen at all.
)
