Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
Since you are not really interested, there is no point in wasting my time on you.

Originally posted by humy
He didn't say there that he was not interested.
Your none answer just confirms you have no answer just as we have already guessed and he implied.
You said yourself you are not interested in debating anything and your none answer only confirms this, so why should we waste time with you?

Originally posted by RJHinds
My answer is this: Evolution is the most abominable myth ever told.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you admit that the videos linked in the OP contain significant errors, or are you willing to defend them against the criticism that has been raised?
Or are you proving my claim that you start threads with links to videos/articles that you know are nonsense and when they get criticised you just start a new thread?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Man is a sinful creature and continues to make mistakes. I can not guarantee that every video you or I may reference does not contain an error for we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not asking you to guarantee it, I am just asking you to recognise it when it is pointed out and either admit that you accept that the errors are there or explain why you think they are not.

[b]The theory of evolution is a gross error and a distortion of right thinking and any information I present that brings this point out to modern man is worth ...[text shortened]... believe you - except those of us who get entertained making fun of the stupidity of it all.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10 to the power of -12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Speaking of Charles Darwin, he was only an armature naturalist and had only observed the finches (birds) on the Galapagos Islands for the first time in the mid 1850s. He noticed that on each island the birds had different shaped beaks according to the type of food available on their particular island. For this reason, he assumed, the birds had progressed over millions of years and only the hardiest of the species had survived the climate and vegetation changes. However, this is totally inaccurate and was dismissed as a mere humor in a TV series on the educational channel in October of 1998. According to the scientists' discoveries in that very same year, the effects of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino, the climate on these same exact islands had drastically changed in a single year within a number of months. And to their surprise, the eggs of the finches on each island hatched open producing birds with beaks already altered to accommodate the changes of their environment.

There is no DNA research pointing to a connection between apes and humans as was supposed by the scientists and those who had financed them over the years. In fact, the barnyard pig is closer to humans in many aspects, than a monkey or a gorilla. Consider the fact, doctors use the skin from pigs to replace needed tissue on burn victims and the famous movie actor, John Wayne had a pig's heart valve installed in his own heart in a 1977 operation to save his life. It worked, too - until his smoking caused him to die of cancer.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_three_main_problems_of_Darwin's_theory_of_evolution

Detailed List Of Problems:

1. When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time.

2. There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links" ) between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

3. The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered - certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the "record" was conveniently changed to conform to their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.

4. The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

5. Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

6. Evolutionists cannot even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.

Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects that possess delicately-balanced attributes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change.

7. Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

8. Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By "absolute nothingness," I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.

9. One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true. Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.

10. Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor - but no free oxygen.

Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. (See, e.g., "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere" by Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham in the March 1982 issue of GEOLOGY.) In other words, evolution could not have even started.

11. Over the years there have been a number of frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are "missing links" to be found in the fossil record. These frauds and blunders have included:

· Eoanthropus dawsoni, popularly know as the "Piltdown Man"

· Arachaeopteryx, sometimes called the "Piltdown Chicken"

· The Orgueil Fall

· Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, meaning "Western ape-man"

· Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "erect ape-man"

· Australopithicines, meaning "Southern Apes."

The sad reality is that school children often are still taught that the aforementioned frauds prove the theory of evolution beyond any doubt.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_three_main_problems_of_Darwin's_theory_of_evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are doing eactly what I was pointing out instead of confronting the main point of the posts, you have hijacked the discussion away from the main point.
I do not intend to play this game with you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The main point of the posts is founded on lies, which you clearly know to be the case which is why you refuse to discuss them.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is founded on lies and that is my main point in pointing out the problems with Darwin's theory of evolution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except that the 'problems' you point out are lies which you well know. Now if you could point out some real problems then you might have a point, but you can't, can you?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not admit the problems that are pointed out are all lies. If they are all lies then you should be able to prove it then.

P.S. You can start with proving that these are not frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are "missing links" found in the fossil record:

· Eoanthropus dawsoni, popula ...[text shortened]... erectus, meaning "erect ape-man"

· Australopithicines, meaning "Southern Apes."