Darwinian Evolution is highly questionable

[Loki]

Before you start arguing or calling me dumb, watch this:

[Bobby Martnen]

Darwinism is the origins myth for the atheist religion.

[Thordis]

As a former atheist/agnostic, I used to believe in evolution and considered it the prime scientific and objective evidence that spoke against the existence of a god and/or creationism. However, the fact is that evolution is simply a theory that cannot be observed or tested. Believing in evolution takes as much if not more a leap of faith than believing in creationism. And in the end, whether we choose to believe in God or not, the theory that the universe and life were created by an intelligent designer makes more sense than the theory that it evolved out of nothing. To say that something came into existence out of nothing is neither realistic nor scientific, as it violates the law of causality. The Big Bang theory doesn't explain it either. The second law of thermodynamics states that organization cannot flow from chaos. Order will move naturally towards disorder, and we can observe this today as well; we have species becoming extinct, we do not see them evolving. Also, matter and energy have to come from somewhere. The world's top scientists with their unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into an organic living cell.

What is the chance that life has risen randomly, on the early earth? The chance can actually be calculated, and it's stunning to consider, it's a fact that life cannot exist or function without proteins; proteins exist within the cell and are required for the structure, function and regulation of the body, they are essential components of muscles, skin, bones and the body as a whole. Proteins are made up of chains of aminoacids and aminoacids in the chain must be in the proper order or sequential arrangement for the protein to form. Pretending for the sake of the argument that an aminoacid compound could have formed into a protein by itself on the early Earth, let's pretend a prebiotic soup existed and that this soup contained the necessary conditions/components required for an aminoacid chain to form randomly, on its own; what would the chance of that happening be? What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35 trillion attempts, it only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

A scientific method is based on the collection of data through observation and experimentation. Darwinian evolution cannot be observed and replicated in order to be scientifically validated and also there is not one single known case of a change of kinds. A desired trait can be produced e.g. in dogs by selecting certain dogs with that particular trait and so many new races of dogs can develop. However, one can never develop a cat by means of selective dog breeding. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. Of course evolutionists will say that this happens over millions+ of years and children are taught in schools that life can evolve given enough time. But this is as false a statement without any scientific support. Time does not make impossible things possible. A chimp at a typewriter punching keys randomly would not eventually type Homer's Iliad or Edgar Allan Poe's Raven. And when you put it that way, it sounds like nonsense. And where are the fossils to prove it? If evolution occured as it should, many millions of years ago, we would still find transitionary fossils. The Coelacanth fish was said to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. However, this myth fell in the late 30s, when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It turned out that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. Also, the fish did not have any half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was just a regular fish that people thought to have become extinct. Evolutionists claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. Yet the fish that was caught appeared exactly the same as the 350 million-year-old fossil. There was no evolution.

Others use certain "vestigial" bones or body parts that they believe to serve no purpose as evidence of evolution. For example, the coccyx (tailbone) has long been wrongly thought to be vestigial by evolutionists. It is an important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles. Or, more frequently, the appendix, which sometimes even gets removed by doctors "just to make sure". The appendix however was found to be part of the immune system.

Evolutionists believe in the mutation theory for the origin of many species. While we can observe mutations today, when they occur, they typically cause crippling diseases and/or render the animal infertile. Mutations are but DNA replication errors, they are damage that passes on to the offspring. Replication also contains built-in error checking. The frequency of errors is about 1 per 100 million bonds.

The theory of evolution was developed about 140 years ago by Charles Darwin (actually, by his grandfather in 1794), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. Scientists around that time believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. However, now we know it is not that simple. Even a simple single cell organism is so complex it requires intelligent design. And yet the most modern and performant laboratoryhas been unable to create a single living cell. Scientists have been unable to create even a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.



And yet evolution is taught to us from an early age as a scientific fact. Any student who questions it is ridiculed and insulted into submission. It is yet another form of indoctrination, brainwashing and dogma. It's certainly a box difficult to think outside of. We tend to associate religion with ignorance and theories like the Big Bang and evolution with science. But it is only so because it's the only thing we know. So it might be surprising many that there are an increasing number of voices speaking out against evolution, and especially that they present creation as an alternative. However, these voices include leading scientists across a range of disciplines (e.g. Michao Kaku believes the universe is designed).

Here's some more food for thought:

[Rethel]

Why Raven has a black nick - the same as Loki has?

[Bobby Martnen]

Why Raven has a black nick - the same as Loki has?

Once you go black, you never go back.

[Harkonnen]

Why Raven has a black nick - the same as Loki has?

Because of Darwinian evolution.

[Loki]

Why Raven has a black nick - the same as Loki has?

Because she's Administratrix together with me now

[Bobby Martnen]

Because she's Administratrix together with me now

What's the difference between black admins and purple admins?

[Zroota]

It's okay to question things, and of course, there are a few flaws in the evolution theory (that's why we alter and make amendments in our science books every year). However, it's still far more believable and fathomable than creationism or any -isms involving the supernatural. I'll still take the theory of evolution over myths and legends written not just a few years ago, but thousands of years ago, before the invention of technology. Heck, those who paved away for the theory of evolution were the first to now that the earth is round and it goes around the sun. Creationists at that time still believed that the sun goes around the earth and the earth is in the center of the universe, or else, heresy and you'll be put to death for believing otherwise!

[Bobby Martnen]

It's okay to question things, and of course, there are a few flaws in the evolution theory (that's why we alter and make amendments in our science books every year). However, it's still far more believable and fathomable than creationism or any -isms involving the supernatural. I'll still take the theory of evolution over myths and legends written not just a few years ago, but thousands of years ago, before the invention of technology. Heck, those who paved away for the theory of evolution were the first to now that the earth is round and it goes around the sun. Creationists at that time still believed that the sun goes around the earth and the earth is in the center of the universe, or else, heresy and you'll be put to death for believing otherwise!