Evolutionists Don't Look at the Facts
Post date: Jul 31, 2014 6:28:28 PM
In my experiences, Evolutionists don't look at the facts.
Fact: Evolution is an Observational Science
When scientists want to prove evolution, they do so by looking at the past and making assumptions. They can't recreate a herd of T-Rex then watch them slowly evolve into birds. They can only look at fossil records and make hypotheses. To test evolution, you'd need something smaller with a shorter life span that we could breed several generations in a very short time.
To do this, scientists have tried the Fruit Fly experiment. In this experiment, they selectively bred fruit flies until the result could no longer breed with the original colony. Scientists have only succeeded in creating a new species of fruit fly that was incompatible with breeding to the original colony. The end result of these tests were still fruit flies, and not a new family of insects. Thus, darwinian evolution has not been successfully recreated nor proven to be fact.
Fact: Practicing Science from an Evolution World-View Falls under the Assuming the Outcome Fallacy
Scientists who believe in evolution start all their observations with the assumption that Evolution is fact. When you assume that Evolution is fact, you overlook other possibilities when observing dinosaur bones or other "evidence" used to prove evolution.
If you look at the bones of Dinosaurs, you could make the same hypothesis that Robert Bakker (renowned palaeontologist and also an evolutionist) has. Bakker looked at what was believed to be species of dinosaurs and saw similarities. The Protoceratops may have been an infant while Torosaur may have been a juvenile. The adult stage may have been the Triceratops. In Bakker's hypothesis, there were far less dinosaurs than what people currently believe. What Bakker has done is observed how creatures live today and made an hypothesis as to what could be.
The problem with this hypothesis is that it removes some of the transitional stages of evolution. It creates more gaps between species. So, most palaeontologists have overlooked these possibilities. Why is this theory not celebrated? It came from the evolutionist camp, but creates additional hurdles for evolution. So, why not embrace?
Fact: Stating that Most Scientists Believe in Evolution ignores the Statistics
Statistically speaking, the percentage of scientists who believe in evolution is higher among biologists. Scientists in chemistry, physics, and other disciplines have found that evolution breaks some of nature's basic rules. Specifically the law of entropy and abiogenesis. The concept of evolution to non-biologists has much to overcome.
Fact: Evolution cannot account for missing information
Humans and apes are about 1.6% different genetically. Humans and bananas are 50% different. So, why don't bananas produce humans? Why don't apes produce humans?
In the DNA code, there's enough information for building a living creature. At conception, every creature's body structure is set. While experiences may change them slightly (IE: getting diseases or wounds), that creature will continue to be whatever it is until it dies. When it breeds, it passes on a copy of its genetics. So, how can two apes pass along the DNA required to make a human? Apes are missing 1.6% of the human genetic code. Where does this code come from?
Mutation in nature is never beneficial. We see that mutation always comes from a loss or corruption in the DNA. So, if humans evolved from apes, shouldn't the ape's DNA code be more complex than the human's? Shouldn't the ape's DNA code include the capacity to create a human? If this is not the case, then how could apes evolve to humans?
Fact: Abiogenesis prevents the beginning of life
When have we ever observed life originating from nothing without invoking evolution? If you take a rock that's completely sanitized of all life, then stick it in a container, you can wait millions of years, but may not see anything grow from it. The problem here is that living cells only come from other living cells. Try creating animal dna from scratch? Notice, most current DNA experiments start with a viable egg. Take the viable egg out of the picture. Start by taking the chemical composition of an egg, then assemble it to create a viable egg. This hasn't been done.
Just because you have the chemical composition for an organism doesn't mean you can create life. As soon as science can repeatibly prove that life can come from non-living material, then abiogenesis is no longer a hurdle in evolution.