tgamble

I would be delighted to help Dave out. Although this is not directed at Charles Darwin, here are a couple of the descrepancies in evolution and they are as follows:
1) Spontaneous generation: For evolution to be true, a functioning DNA genetic code, a cell wall, and energy-generating apparatus(the absolute minimum requirements for a viable cell) were all randomly present in the same place, and exactly the same time in the infamous primordial soup mix "about" 570 million years ago. Although not many evolutionists like to say it, this practically impossible random chance is the origin of the entire population of species on this planet. (the majority of scientists don't agree with S.G., and yet, it is pivotal to the theory of evlution.)

Louis Pasteur proved experimentally that non-life cannot produce life, that dead objects cannot produce living ones, that each organism requires parents, and that only parents produce the new life. And that was over a century ago.

I remember reading in a biology textbook that recently scientists had recreated the certain coditions of that time and had already created "some" of the amino acids making it seem like they were not far away from creating life itself. When I had read this, I laughed until I cried. It is absolutely absurd to think that you could create an incredibly complex organism by generating lighting in a test tube.

Also, saying spontaneous generation happened is putting a large amount of FAITH in the evoloutionary theory, because there is no substantial evidence for this event occuring.

2)Random mutations and natural selection giving rise to more complex organisms: If a rare mutation takes place, it almost always results in the death of the organism, or at least the organism not being able to reproduce. If it doesn't kill the organism, then it will either be more or less able to survive,(natural selection). Besides, minor improvements would be unlikely to help a creature to survive. For example, a pit in the forehead is not exactly helpful (supposedly the first step in the development of eyes).

Also, the concept of random events building up to more orderly and complex systems goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That law states in layman's terms that left to itself, everything is becoming more disordered over time. Although many scientists have tried to get around this law, the fact remains that no proof of true upward evolution has ever been found. The law of increasing entropy provides a good explanation as to why it never will be found, for entropy and evoltuion are completely opposite concepts.

Even Albert Einstein said, "Classical thermodynamics ... is the only physical theory of universal content concerning which I am convinced that, within the framework of its basic concepts, it will never be overthrown."


I could go on about other topics where evolution falls short, and I'm sure that an evolutionist could do the same with creationism. But, for now I hope this is sufficient. And I hope you will not look at this closed-mindedly and with a biased opinion, but realize that we all have the same information, and it's how we interpret this information which leads to how we see and understand the world. I'm not saying that creation is a proven fact, because neither evolution or creation can be proven "scientificlly" because no one was there to witness what happened however long ago. And because NO ONE has any hardcore proof, both creation AND evolution require a step of faith (whether evolutionists want to call it that or not is up to them). But for me, I have read from evolutionists, and from creationists, and from the Bible, and I am decidedly a young earth creationist. <><

<a href="http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000002.html" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000002.html</a>

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Non-praying Mantis

Sad is an UNDERSTATEMENT!!!

These people have the religous wool pulled so far over their eyes, they have a full-length sweater!
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

NPM

tgamble

Yeah, but if I'd called it a totally moronic fucked up post, it would have been censored.


Dare I hope that he'll be responsive to the corrections of his errors?

Bubba

Somehow I don't think that his brain is firing on all eight sparkplugs <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Bubba

Albion

...which is just another way of saying that if you don't agree with me, you've got a closed mind.