It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
This is just one of many ways to see the truth without using the Bible. This one is not a religious thread, unless you personally want to apply it. This is scientific data only. I had to crop some of this to fit but you can see the entire article on the links below.

Darwin was wrong. It’s plain, yet simple to understand. Those who do not have an open mind to evaluate these facts will have a hard time understanding. We must take a step back and analyze what we know to date and properly view such data. This naturally, is liable to drive evolutionary biologists into a rage. Both sides need to evaluate the scientific facts, beyond theories; regardless of what you believe to be factual. It’s known to many that Darwin, on his deathbed recanted his belief in Evolution. Check it out if you don’t believe it.

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the BibleThere are logical reasons apart from Scripture's direct testimony to reject the theory of evolution and accept creation and a Creator.


Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.
What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally— you !
In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the "molecules to man" theory—we'll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)


www.ucg.org...

Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's
Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False, and Impossible


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.
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.


The following link does say Bible; however the scientific proof is what I show. Not the Biblical perspective.

www.biblelife.org...

edit on 5/29/2014 by tothetenthpower because: --Mod Edit--Far Too Much Copy/Pasta



+7 more 
posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
So much text, I will point out that much of what you quoted does not prove or disprove anything...


Scientific Fact No. 11 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong.
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms.

Lack of radio signals does not prove or disprove evolution. Energy decreases over distance traveled.


Scientific Fact No. 12 - Timeline and Archaeology Prove Evolution is Wrong.
Mankind has left behind the Great Pyramids of Egypt (4,500 years ago), the Great Wall of China extending 3,400 miles in length (started 2,700 years ago), Silbury Hill of England (4,600 years ago), and Stonehenge of England (5,000 years ago). These and other structures were made by man and date back approximately 4,500 years.

How do old structures disprove evolution? I think this is a little silly.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: wonderworld
That's too much quoting. You are going to get hit by the mods for it.
That aside ... could you summarize the points exactly in your own words.
Thanks.


+17 more 
posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
This article is a HUGE lie all because it claims that evolution proponents argue how life began. Evolution STARTS with the premise that life already exists and makes zero, I repeat, ZERO claims on how life started. I therefore call this whole article invalid.

I could go on and debunk all these other claims (most are dumb arguing like the claim that invalidates statistics by saying that an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite number of typewrites wouldn't be able to produce the Gettysburg Address), but I won't. The fact that the article author couldn't be arsed to even fully understand what Evolution claims and just goes on to decide for himself what it claims just shows how much nonsense this article is. Typical Creationist drivel. Makes a bunch of straw man arguments, claims they are false, then claims victory.

Heck even the claim that the article is using science to disprove evolution is a lie. I saw no reference to any studies or calculations that disprove anything. Just a bunch of claims positioned as "facts" followed by what some idiot thinks is and isn't possible.
edit on 27-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: wonderworld



Darwin was wrong.

Nobody cares what Darwin thinks, he just started the idea, the idea has been build upon it with evidence and actual use.


F for Fossils


Then why can't we find our modern animal's bones in from sediments 500 millions years ago? they surely existed then right? since they don't change.


Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species.

Not enough time to see big chances.


The law of biogenesis...

STOP, it is not the same as evolution, it being proven right or wrong does not affect evolution at all.


S for Symbiosis

Not all living things require another living thing. Some can living solely with chemicals on the basic elemental on the periodic chart.


E for Engineering

You can just look at bacteria and say "look it works as if it was made for humans"... that would be putting your modern perspective in it... just like saying the tree's purpose is to give us oxygen.





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.


*Sigh* The law and theory arguments.... and the comprehension of theory and scientific theory..

Gravity is sill a theory, go jump off a building, see if you will float.





The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible.


Lol that is Abiogenesis. Do these Anti-evolutionist(directed at the article) even try any more? Oh wait they are better at parroting their preacher.



DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong.


If it was 100% absolute, we would have no birth defects or mutations. Exonucleases are not perfect.


oh boy.. there is mars and other stuff... i got no time right now... i will reply when i get home.


(post by SirKonstantin removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elton
So much text, I will point out that much of what you quoted does not prove or disprove anything...




Scientific Fact No. 11 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms.


Lack of radio signals does not prove or disprove evolution. Energy decreases over distance traveled.




Scientific Fact No. 12 - Timeline and Archaeology Prove Evolution is Wrong.

Mankind has left behind the Great Pyramids of Egypt (4,500 years ago), the Great Wall of China extending 3,400 miles in length (started 2,700 years ago), Silbury Hill of England (4,600 years ago), and Stonehenge of England (5,000 years ago). These and other structures were made by man and date back approximately 4,500 years.


How do old structures disprove evolution? I think this is a little silly.
like I said I had to crop small parts from the paragraphs to fit. If you read the full text it answers your questions more thoroughly.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: wonderworld


Those who do not have an open mind to evaluate these facts will have a hard time understanding.


Those who don't know what evolution is will also have a hard time understanding.

A. I don't believe your source author understands the difference between adaptation and evolution.
B. Not that it matters, but there is strong evidence that Darwin did not recant, but that someone (Lady Hope) made that up for her own agenda.
Did Darwin Recant?



The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin’s family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was ‘false and without any kind of foundation’,4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had ‘no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view’.5 Charles’s daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, ‘I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . The whole story has no foundation whatever’.


C. Birds evolved from flying dinosaurs, which had wings...

Sorry, there's so much wrong with your "proof" that it's not worth delving into further.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: wonderworld

That's too much quoting. You are going to get hit by the mods for it.

That aside ... could you summarize the points exactly in your own words.

Thanks.

If I didn’t add the external quote marks I would be in trouble for plagiarism. The mods are aware of this. Those are not my words. It isn’t a quote so much as an external source. Do you understand how ATS works? You are also off topic to complain about my thread in that manner. The mods do recognize this but I’m not telling them.

Maybe the external source quotes have changed in the last few years if so can you direct me to the proper location. It should look like this without the spaces [ e x ] or [ / e x ]. I know the images link has changed since about 2009 so I'm not aware of other changes. Please fill me in if you can. I dont like the way it looks in the narrow column either. I wont rewrite and use my own words that is like cheating.
edit on 27-5-2014 by wonderworld because: Edit to add comment



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I think if somebody is going to prove evolution false they should at least know what evolution is. Cleary whoever came up with that hot mess the OP quotes has no idea. Perhaps this article where evolution has been observed in a lab will help the OP better understand what it is and how it works. Bacteria make major evolutionary change in lab



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

You think it is hilarious. Hmm, there is no humor involved. You guys only have silly pictures as your replies. Let's hear some rebuttal of scientific nature.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Dang!



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: wonderworld
a reply to: watchitburn

You think it is hilarious. Hmm, there is no humor involved. You guys only have silly pictures as your replies. Let's hear some rebuttal of scientific nature.



I did rebut your (un)scientific article. Your article isn't scientific, it just pretends to be by making a bunch of claims, positioning them as "facts" then debunking them. Your article is in fact a giant gish gallop consisting of many strawmans and unsourced claims. I pointed out two of them in my post.


The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments - the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.

Examples are most commonly found in "list" articles that may claim to show "100 reasons for" something, or "50 reasons against" something. At this sort of level, with dozens upon dozens of minor arguments, each individual point on the list may only be a single sentence or two, and many may be a repeat or vague re-wording of a previous one. This is the intention: although it is trivial amount of effort on the part of the galloper to make a point, particularly if they just need to re-iterate an existing one a different way, a refutation may take much longer and someone addressing will be unable to refute all points in a similarly short order. If even one argument in a Gish Gallop is left standing at the end, or addressed insufficiently, the galloper will attempt to claim victory.

edit on 27-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
I think if somebody is going to prove evolution false they should at least know what evolution is. Cleary whoever came up with that hot mess the OP quotes has no idea. Perhaps this article where evolution has been observed in a lab will help the OP better understand what it is and how it works. Bacteria make major evolutionary change in lab


Sorry but i do know my science. I believe in Adaptation and Mutation. Not Evolution! Both theories are based by experimental reseach. I hope i dont need to expalin how an experiment, fact, theory or a conclusion is aquired here. It's cut and dry, simply put.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: wonderworld




Those who do not have an open mind to evaluate these facts will have a hard time understanding.




Those who don't know what evolution is will also have a hard time understanding.



A. I don't believe your source author understands the difference between adaptation and evolution.

B. Not that it matters, but there is strong evidence that Darwin did not recant, but that someone (Lady Hope) made that up for her own agenda.

Did Darwin Recant?






The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin’s family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was ‘false and without any kind of foundation’,4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had ‘no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view’.5 Charles’s daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, ‘I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . The whole story has no foundation whatever’.




C. Birds evolved from flying dinosaurs, which had wings...



Sorry, there's so much wrong with your "proof" that it's not worth delving into further.



Many people have changed their minds on their death beds. I suspect he didnt want to gamble with his soul. He may have came to the conclusion that there is a creator. Just because my article says 'Without the Bible" doesnt mean i cant mention it here. Many good scientists that are on to something have doubts about the Mechanical structures of chemistry and biology. It can be mind boggling, even if in denial. Life forms are so complex it gives way to the possibility to those who attempt to disprove the facts.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirKonstantin


No, are you retarded? Cant you do a little better than childish nonsense? Lets debate science! Not looney toon pics.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirKonstantin


Thats disgusting!
I dont agree with everything OP presented but I wouldn't attack him / her in that way!
Shame on you!



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: wonderworld
Many people have changed their minds on their death beds.


I'm sure they have, but we're talking about Darwin's Alleged Deathbed Conversion

Neither of them prove a thing.



Just because my article says 'Without the Bible" doesnt mean i cant mention it here.


I didn't say anything about that.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: wonderworld

originally posted by: MrSpad
I think if somebody is going to prove evolution false they should at least know what evolution is. Cleary whoever came up with that hot mess the OP quotes has no idea. Perhaps this article where evolution has been observed in a lab will help the OP better understand what it is and how it works. Bacteria make major evolutionary change in lab


Sorry but i do know my science. I believe in Adaptation and Mutation. Not Evolution! Both theories are based by experimental reseach. I hope i dont need to expalin how an experiment, fact, theory or a conclusion is aquired here. It's cut and dry, simply put.


If you know your science then what is all that nonsense in your op? You know your science yet knowing evolution has been observed in a lab you continue to pretend it does not exist. I think you are just getting confused on what you think evolution is and what it is in fact. This is like trying to prove the theory of gravity does not exist.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join