1. Welcome to No Deposit Forum! Please log in to continue. New members please register here. New Member Registration

Flaws of Evolution.

Discussion in 'GENERAL DISCUSSION' started by Seventh7777777, Aug 5, 2010.

  1. Being the sort of guy whom believes half of what I see and none of what i`m told (could open up a huge can of worms here by mentioning 9/11 or 7/7, but i`ll keep that for forums it`s intended for lol), I just cannot help but to notice the gigantic anamolies associated with what we are spoon fed regarding our (mammals) species evolving on this planet.... The facts..1). As we are all aware the magnificance that is mother nature, covers every single aspect of the evironment right down to the most finest detail, with this in mind when she created all living things on this planet, she created them by covering every single aspect of the hostile surroundings this planet brings via the four seasons.2). Creatures that need no homes, heating, constant mothering until they leave the breast feeding stage and can fend for themselves, with this in mind she created the perfect living creatures for this world... Reptiles.3). How spot on was she with her assessment of the creatures adaptibility with their respective host?, i`d say she was 100% perfect in every aspect.4). Reptiles walked this planet for hundreds of millions of years, and as stated previously curtesy of mother nature had the genetic ability to evolve if re-evolving was needed to adapt to the enviromental changes, which as was the case in certain circumstances, they indeed did re-evolve, when trees got taller thus making it harder for the herbivores to feed, they grew longer necks, but, not once, did mother nature feel the need to have a complete overhaul of the creatures she put here with the perfect harmony of their surrounds her main goal.5). Then it happened, and this is where the huge flaws start to surface...A). We are led to believe that a meter/meteors dealt this planet such a beating that it wiped out the Dinosaurs via a nuclear winter which in turn created an Ice-Age, a nuclear winter is caused by billions of tons of dust sent up to the ionosphere thus blocking out the suns rays, which in turn starves all plant life of the live giving rays they need to photosynthesis, without this all plant life dies, without plants there is nothing to turn carbon dioxide into oxygen, without oxygen, everything dies.B). So here we have a situation where some creatures survived, those that did were either Reptiles or Fish.C). It was around this time that mother nature decided that.. Although her earlier creations had left the planet in exactly the same condition as it was the day they first arrived, proving the point everything was 100% harmonious with each other, she decided for some very bizarre reason that changes were needed, thus the birth of the mammal was introduced, how these evolved from what little creatures were left after the Ice-Age?, God only knows (pardon the pun lol).E). There have been several programmes the past years depicting in explicit details the rise and fall of those that 1st walked this planet, walking with Dinosaurs is probably the most famous, we knew of their feeding, mating habits, clues as to when certian re-evolving had taken place, we have pretty much assessed the rise and fall of these creatures over a time stamp of several hundred million years, of course all this is able due to the clues left via fossiles etc.F). So, here we have the biggest of all the evoltionary anomalies, how is it possible to have all these clues tracing back millions upon millions of years ago, and absolutely none at all from the most recent of life forms to grace this planet?.I will leave you some food for thought... Think of every living creature on this planet that would hunt and kill man for food be it solo or in packs..1). Big cats.2). Canines (wolves, wild dogs, hyenas, dingos etc etc).3). Bears.4). Killer whales.5). Sharks.6). Reptiles (crocs and gaters).Out of all the above there are only two species that cannot be trained to be mans friend, both are none mammals.A few videos showing the compassion and heart felt love showing predators from a different angle....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpfvkeo0KBchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu_7jaJV2DEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D57Yfmz8AKkMammals could not have inherited a soul from creatures that were barren from one in the 1st place.
  2. Sookie

    Sookie Mother of Cats

    AMEN. (thats all im gonna say)
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2014
  3. krystalkitty

    krystalkitty Greedy Gambler

    Interesting!!
  4. Mben

    Mben No Deposit Forum Admin Staff Member

    Yes, very interesting. "
    "
    And I have a question but will PM it to you because I don't need the whole human species to know what a ditz I am. lol
  5. Sookie

    Sookie Mother of Cats

    [​IMG]PM it to me then too-i probably had the same question [​IMG]
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2014
  6. I cannot believe with all these ladies posting, none have mentioned getting watery eyed watching the videos lol ;).
  7. Mben

    Mben No Deposit Forum Admin Staff Member

    Ok, I had tears in my eyes watching the Christian, the Lion video. That was truly amazing."
    "
    So now for my ditzyness to come out.................."
    "
    I understand dinosaurs existed and dinosaurs became extinct due the meteors. "
    "
    After the earth became well again, mammals started populating the earth. And, if you follow the steps of evolution, mammals came from reptiles and/or fish. The only creatures that survived. "
    "
    So......... what you are saying is that if we have seen proof (as in your videos) that mammals actually have some sort of soul, how can the theory of evolution state that mammals came from reptiles and/or fish? The only two creatures that cannot be trained to be man's friend. "
    "
    This is how I understand what all that meant. Am I right? If so, then yes, there is a flaw with the theory of evolution. "
    "
  8.  
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2014
  9. Doh I forgot the most important part lol, if Dinosaurs became extinct, what did the 10000`s of mammals actually evolve from?.
  10. Mben

    Mben No Deposit Forum Admin Staff Member

    So ............ that is the whole point, right?  Thanks for the detailed explanation, btw.  
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2014
  11. Gonna leave all those that are following this thread with a simple question:)......When you see Stonehenge, Pyramids, Cavemen paintings, what do you actually decipher from these man made wonderous feats of unexplainable magnitude?.Before answering, a little research on these, aspects like the monoliths used at Salisbury Plain, how heavy where they?, how did they transport them from Wales over 10,000 years ago, and how did they manage to place these 15 ton beasts with the equipment at hand. The Pyramids - How was the stone transported, cut, and placed with geomatrical precision that engineers of today would struggle to achieve?, how do these buildings cope with some of the harshest elemental conditions in the world?, how did the ancient Egyptians know so much about preserving bodies also?.How did cavemen create a paint that has lasted in full affect the best part of 12000 years?.
  12. Wow I just googled Flaws in Evolution to see any other theories akin to mine, and boy this guys does it one helluva leap better than me lol...... TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION - REVISED by Randy Alcorn (with additional editing by Jim Darnall). I wrote the following article many years ago, but it needed to be thoroughly revised and updated. Thanks to Jim Darnall for adding some important new information.  <ol>The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chancethey had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to happen by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be randomthey simply had to be designed and created. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from amoeba to man would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or the least energetic state ). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ( missing links ) required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see thisthere are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized kinds. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been. Pictures of ape-to-human missing links are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be reconstructed a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed ape-men are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called ape-men would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the missing link (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed systemthat no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions. Uses continue to be found for supposedly leftover body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organsthose that are increasing in complexity. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generationa concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called spontaneous generation. Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from lifethis is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). Chemical Evolution is just another way of saying spontaneous generation life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five heads in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive. The scientific method can only test existing datait cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word. </ol> 
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2014
  13. Sookie

    Sookie Mother of Cats

    I hear you Seven, lol.Anyway , I think its great food for thought.I myself lean towards Creatalution . But thats just me-all I can say is keep seeking the truth and it will find you.[​IMG]
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2014
  14. Sookie

    Sookie Mother of Cats

    By the way guys- these are the you tube videos from Seventh7777777'soringinal post in this thread :[video=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu_7jaJV2DE]
  15. Sookie

    Sookie Mother of Cats

    [video=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpfvkeo0KBc]
  16. Sookie

    Sookie Mother of Cats

    [video=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5BSPhEbKb8]
  17. Sookie

    Sookie Mother of Cats

    [video=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D57Yfmz8AKk]

Share This Page