Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Unless you factor in the amount of time that is far beyond your comprehension. Or...care to share with us which creation myth or religion is less
"far fetched?"
I'll be glad to. First of all, let's start with abiogenesis shall we.
In the past, they thought that flies appeared from garbage itself. That was proven wrong when someone placed some flasks where some were open and some
where closed and flies only appeared on the open one. Two centuries later, that belief came up again but with bacteria and algae. A scientist came
along again, and he showed that life only comes from other life, including large animals and also algae and bacteria. That is basic biology. He showed
an experiment to a lot of people to prove his point. I'm not gonna explain the experiment completely. The thing was that a sterile liquid not exposed
to air will not form bacteria. It was proven again that life can not form from non-life. Now there's that primordial soup thing, which is completely
hypothetical btw (no proof..), wherein a chain of chemical reactions took place and formed a single cell. Then a group of those cells grouped
themselves together in colonies to form more complex organisms. This turned into fish blabla and then turned into man.. According to this, every
single creature can be traced back to a single cell, which is represented by that tree of life. These are ALL ASSUMPTIONS. There is no proof
whatsoever. They use these assumptions for the rest of the theory.
Next is the fossil records. All those bacteria and animals that are found, are found abruptly in the fossil record. There's no connection between
them so to speak. They are simply separate. I didn't make this up, a lot of paleontologists say so. After two centuries of intense research, the
paleontological evidence for evolution is VERY rare AND highly questionable. There are no links. There is also no indication that the situation will
change in the future. If you don't believe me, ask a paleontologist or search about all those fake "apehumans" they made up with bones of man and
apes. Besides that, all the things they use as links, for example that flying reptile that had feathers, is still very far from conclusive. Also a lot
of paleontologists claim that humans did not change at all since their first appearance and that the whole apehuman thing should be thrown in the
garbage. They even call evolution a mythology.
Now we go into evolution within the cells themselves. Biochemists say that mutations are not fixed to natural selection in the first place. Natural
selection only eliminations anomalies that mutation can create. It stabilizes. Nothing more, nothing less. If living organisms were different in the
past does not mean organisms have changed, only that they became extinct. They don't "make" new organisms. That's a BIG assumption they make.
It's just a general agreement. No proof here. And even "simple" organisms like algae and bacteria are real complex and not something nature just
comes up with by chance. It must derive from other life. Biochemists also claim that the basic of the life structure is the same but this does not
mean that it evolved, but exactly the opposite, that life stayed the same, because evolved life would mean a more complex structure and that's not
the case. The genetic data however, is different. When comparing man to other species, humans are original and did not evolve from any other species.
Genetic data does not support an organism evolving into a more complex one at all.
Now we come to the geological timescale and rock strata. They search for "layers" where they find fossils. They say if something is deeper buried,
it's older, but that's simply not true. The layer they say is actually a bank, and not the actual layer. Something buried deeper can easily be
younger than something on the surface. The layers form sideways gradually and sometimes even instantly, and not the way they tell you. They say, a
layer came a few million years ago (carbon dated, ill get into that later), a few million years passed, then another layer etc, but they are looking
at banks, which is wrong. I'm not gonna explain this too deep. Research this yourself or look at this video and its other parts (starts after 1:40)
till part 6:
www.youtube.com...
Now we come to physical chemistry which includes carbon dating and uranium dating. First carbon dating. For this, carbon-14 is used, which is an
unstable radioactive form of the carbon element. Carbon is present in living organisms and is processed by the body, where a certain amount becomes
carbon-14 and is expelled from the body. When it dies, the remaining carbon-14 which was present at the moment of death, is what can be detected. From
the moment of death, carbon-14 is decaying and by calculating how much decayed, they have an indication of how old the animal was, however, this is
only valid for living lifeforms because rocks do not contain carbon-14. Fossils in rock can therefore not be carbon dated. Most fossils are found in
rock strata. Dating those by "layers" is far from accurate, and no carbon-14 can be applied. And rock strata often do not have any radioactive
material to give indication. Therefore they often use lava or crystalline rocks nearby (which don't contain fossils..) which sometimes do contain
radioactive material to date the fossils..
Then we come to radio-isotope dating, and we'll use uranium as an example. Uranium decays into lead. They compare what's left of uranium in the
rock, the formed lead, and the rate of decay to give a time indication for how long it took for the lead to form. But there are a few problems with
this. You don't know if there was lead there in the first place that did not decay from the uranium, and lot of rocks contain lead that didn't come
from uranium. This make the rock appear a lot older than it actually is. Another problem is that uranium can leak out of the rock because of humidity
and other stuff, which will also make the rock appear a lot older. They tested this with lava that was 200 years old, and the calculations said it was
22 million years... Another problem is that they assume the rate of decay has remained constant, which is also highly unreasonable.. There are too
many influences that cause this to change..
So.. After reviewing these facts it's obvious evolution has ZERO factual support in science..
[edit on 13-12-2008 by vasaga]
