Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu78]

Even if every single thing you said in your post was proven true, which I really don't believe, this one line, I am absolutely sure, is not proven or even able to be proven.

Let me give it a try: When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

â??Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processesâ?� (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, â??Evidence that Demands a Verdictâ?� by Josh McDowell.

[From â??Reincarnation in the Bible?â?� http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/b...0-595-12387-2]

[Pahu78]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c. â??By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...â?� Nilsson, p. 1143.

â??But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.â?� Jonathan Wells, â??Survival of the Fakest,â?� The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d. Fix, pp. 189â??191.

Denton, pp. 142â??155.

â??Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same â??patternsâ??, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.â?� [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e. â??Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.â?� Ibid., p. 13.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 17.   Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

i always pegged the "supernatural" as simply nature that human kind has yet to explain with science.


and i believe that nature is unlimited, whereas science is vastly and tremendously limited.

[psychocat]

The good thing about this thread is that I get to play devils advocate for both sides of the discussion.

Unfortunately it will have to wait as I have more pressing matters to attend to. :rastasmoke:

[TurnyBright]

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

This is not logic! You've made a list of claims.

Where did you logically deduce that the universe had a beginning? Where did you logically deduce that "no universe" means "nothing?" What is "nothing?" Have you heard about dark matter?

Life may exist, but can you define what it is? Viruses, infectious and reproductive, can and do arise from abiotic material.

The stuff you've written here is utterly unprovable as it relies upon undefined terms to follow "logic," and most of the claims you've made obviously based on faith, not observation (ie the universe had a beginning, before the universe there was nothing, nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause). You're pushing religion here, not science.

[Delta9 UK]

He's just another Creationist copy-paster dumping text from a website with a shit load of made up information. Even his replies are copy pasted FFS.

Same crap here:
Atheist Nation Forums | Post reply

I doubt he will even be drawn into 'discussion' as that would involve understanding the material and running into scientists like me and we all know where that leads, rapidly downhill. This crap is only tolerated by a small bunch of Nimrods - the entire scientific community is otherwise oblivious or bemused. I for one find it frightening as these idiots seem to be gaining ground...

I'm still waiting to see how "Science Disproves Evolution" :wtf: - my guess is it will be a long wait...

[Delta9 UK]

Actually most of this points to a website trying to sell a book so - its actually SPAM

[psychocat]

This is not logic! You've made a list of claims.

Where did you logically deduce that the universe had a beginning? Where did you logically deduce that "no universe" means "nothing?" What is "nothing?" Have you heard about dark matter?

Life may exist, but can you define what it is? Viruses, infectious and reproductive, can and do arise from abiotic material.

The stuff you've written here is utterly unprovable as it relies upon undefined terms to follow "logic," and most of the claims you've made obviously based on faith, not observation (ie the universe had a beginning, before the universe there was nothing, nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause). You're pushing religion here, not science.

Faith is an alien concept to me and I agree 100% that all creationists are guilty of attempting to convince us of the "if you have faith" BS.

Supernatural is a vague word at best, it implies something that is superior to nature and therefore un-natural , I however am of the belief that "if it is possible then it must be natural". I don't believe it is possible for anything to exist that defies the laws of nature.

[Coelho]

Well... i wont enter in more one endless discussion about creationism versus evolution... i think both may be right (and wrong) in some aspects. Like, creationism and evolution would be two opposite extremes of the real thing, and while both seems contradictory when one looks only at each one, i think the real thing is a blend of both, a thing between them.
Once i thought about one way to reconcile them... its only one way, among many other possible ones... anyway, anyone interested in it, look at:

http://boards.cannabis.com/spiritual...very-long.html

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Faith is an alien concept to me

same here.

supernatural is a vague word at best, it implies something that is superior to nature, and therefore "unnatural", I however am of the belief that "if it is possible then it must be natural". I dont believe it is possible for anything to exist that defies the laws of nature

i agree whole heartedly