Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu78]

Well... almost 200 posts after, and this debate still goes on and on... i think this debate only will be definitively answered if some day mankind create a time-machine, travel to the past, and do see the evolution actually happening (or God creating the live beings Himself).

Until this happens, all we have are theories. Some are more "logical", more "rational" than others, but all of them are just theories, just creations of human's minds. The universe has absolutely NO need to behave in a "logical" and "rational" way, and so the mere rationality of a theory does NOT prove its validity.

What we do have are facts of physics, from which we can and do draw logical conclusions. Nearly everything we enjoy is the result of those conclusions: electricity, cars, planes, computers, etc., etc.

If the universe was inconsistent, and didnâ??t behave in a "logical" and "rational" way, none of the above would be possible, would it? It is the rationality of a theory that does prove its validity.

And if we are actually descendants of primitive monkeys, its even worst... cause, after all, we are just smarter monkeys.

We are far more than just smarter monkeys. There are physical similarities, but there is no comparison with the output. While monkeys are still swinging from branches, we are going to the moon and beyond. Does DNA or genes account for this difference? I donâ??t think so. So what does this vast difference suggest? I believe it suggests a spiritual component that is lacking in all other life forms. We have a physical brain like the chimps, but we have a spiritual mind that they lack. This is in harmony with the Bible revelation that we were created in the image of God, who is spirit.

But as we completly dismiss the cosmological theories of the gorillas, apes, etc (in fact we dont even consider the fact this primates may have thoughts, much less thoughts about their origins), why our own theories shouldnt be dismissed too? Only because we are the "smarter" ones doesnt mean that we are the smartest monkeys in the universe, and the sole knowers of the truth.

You say it is a fact that monkeys may have thoughts. I would think if it were a fact, you would follow that with â??sinceâ?� rather than â??mayâ?�. Actually, it isnâ??t a fact, is it? It is just your unsupported opinion.

All the evidence shows we are indeed smarter than the apes. To doubt that is to admit ignorance of those facts.

(BTW, who knows what the other primates think about us? I think watching Planet of the Apes may be a very enlightening experience...)

Planet of the Apes was a good science fiction show, except for the one unnecessary profanity at the end. But is it wise to substitute science fiction for science? That is what evolutionists do to attempt to validate their myth.

Other thing that hasnt much to do with the paragraphs above: as relativity says, time is just another universe's dimension, like space, and thus it only exists for those who are "inside" the universe, "inside" the 4d-spacetime. Outside the spacetime there isnt time as we know it, so talking about "before" the "creation" of the universe doesnt make any physical sense, because time (and also space) started to exist only when the universe itself started to exist.

We think in terms of time for convenience. It is true that time and the universe came into existence at the same time. Space is something else.

Since the definition of â??universeâ?� is everything that exists, before the universe nothing existed, did it? If nothing existed, there must have been nothing. We donâ??t really have to use the word â??spaceâ?�. If nothing existed, there was nothing. It has been observed that nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause. Since the universe came from nothing, the cause must be supernatural.

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1g
[/align]


g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionistsâ?? own time scale, this â??transitionâ?� occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.


[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411â??415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]

It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptileâ??s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218â??219 and Pitman, pp. 199â??200.]

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[funiman111]

Cant mix science with religon... Two diffrent topics

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1h-i
[/align]

h. â??Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.â?� Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

i. â??The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.â?� W. E. Swinton, â??The Origin of Birds,â?� Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.

Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.

A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., â??Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,â?� Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267â??1270.] In that report, â??Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.â?� [Ann Gibbons, â??Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood,â?� Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]

Bird and theropod â??handsâ?� differ. Theropods have â??fingersâ?� I, II, and III (having lost the â??ring fingerâ?� and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. â??The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds.â?� [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, â??Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,â?� Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666â??668.] â??...this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy.â?� [Richard Hinchliffe, â??The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?â?� Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[funiman111]

Fossils do get destroyed in the rock record (Unconformities), just becuase we dont find them doesn't mean they dont exist.

[Pahu78]

Fossils do get destroyed in the rock record (Unconformities), just becuase we dont find them doesn't mean they dont exist.

True, but the fact remains that after finding millions of fossils of perfectly functioning life forms, not one transition has been found from one species to a different species as evolution requires. Doesn't that seem odd, if they really exist?

[Delta9 UK]

True, but the fact remains that after finding millions of fossils of perfectly functioning life forms, not one transition has been found from one species to a different species as evolution requires. Doesn't that seem odd, if they really exist?

Well that's an age-old creationist lie, one of the most blatant and persistant.

You mean transitions that don't exist like this list:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^^There are even nice little paintings to help you understand

or maybe these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

I could go on.

The only place that they don't exist is in your own mind

Don't even get me started on the retroviral evidence - it'll make a monkey's uncle out of you!

More creationist double-think.

[Pahu78]

Originally Posted by Pahu78
True, but the fact remains that after finding millions of fossils of perfectly functioning life forms, not one transition has been found from one species to a different species as evolution requires. Doesn't that seem odd, if they really exist?

Well that's an age-old creationist lie, one of the most blatant and persistant.

You mean transitions that don't exist like this list:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^^There are even nice little paintings to help you understand

I read the article and found that it speaks of similarities, not transitions from one species to a different species. The pictures confirm this fact. That is why it can make the assertion that â??Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception.â?�

Since â??transitionâ?� is being substituted for â??similarities,â?� (â??An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms.â?�) that assertion is valid since all life forms share similarities.

This is what some scientists say on the subject:

â??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.â?� [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.â?� [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

â??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.â?� [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

â??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the â??officialâ?� position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).â?� [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

â??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and â??fully formed.â??â?� [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

or maybe these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

I could go on.

The only place that they don't exist is in your own mind

Don't even get me started on the retroviral evidence - it'll make a monkey's uncle out of you!

More creationist double-think.

Or, the only place where transitional fossils exist is in your imagination. If you are interested in the truth, you will find a thorough rebuttal of â??29 Evidences For Macroevolutionâ?� here: - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -

[funiman111]

The research is 30 years old. Got anything recent??? Species change to adapt to the environment, hence evolution.

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 2i-k
[/align]

Theropod â??armsâ?� (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.

â??...most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx [the supposed first bird].â?� Hinchliffe, p. 597.

Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.

j. â??When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural....It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known...â?� William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25â??26.

â??The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record.â?� A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.

â??Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humansâ??of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beingsâ??is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.â?� Lyall Watson, â??The Water People,â?� Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.

k. â??At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.â?� Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps