For all athiest?

Question

pharoahmuhammad
3 minutes ago

Do you believe evolution after you read this?
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Diamond back rattle snakes cannot be selectively bred until you have one with wings that jumps in the air and flies away. Evolution is impossible.

The same process is done with flowers, fruit and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical within each animal that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

Answer 1

Your evidence is flawed in several places.

Of course the Theory of evolution is not a law but a theory. Thus the title THEORY of evolution. Laws have exceptions.

I also fail to see the link between breeding and natural selection. You CAN get new traits from mutations in the DNA, and if these mutations are advantageous, nature allows them to survive and reproduce, and thus the mutation is passed on to the next generation.

The reason for the lack of variety in cheetah DNA is due to a extended period of inbreeding that occured during the last ice age. This means that cheetahs are more closely related to one another than humans are to one another. Thus the ability of cheetahs to recieve skin from one another.

Not one thing in your rant disproves evolution.

Answer 2

First of all, try to understand what a scientific theory or law is, before you try and argue against it. First an idea, in the form of a statement has to be put forth to explain something, which we call a hypothesis. A hypothesis has one main requirement: it has to be able to be proven FALSE. For example, if we want to know why a room is dark, we could propose the following valid hypotheses:

1) The room is dark because I have gone blind.

2) The room is dark because the switch is off.

EITHER of these statements could be proven false by testing the hypothesis. The scientific method states that the simplist hypothesis is probably the best hypothesis (notice I didn't use the word "correct"...) hence it is more likely that the switch on the wall is off than I have gone blind.

An example of an INVALID hypothesis would be:

4) The room is dark because there is an invisible, undetectable force coming from the neighbor's house that is taking light from the room.

It is impossible to prove this explanation wrong, so it is not a hypothesis, and it could never become a theory or law.

Scientists form theories by proposing hypothesies, then testing those hypothesies time and time again in an unbiased manner. The only reason people start to refer to a particular hypothesis as a theory or law (there is no clear distinction between the two), is because it has been tested in so many ways by so many different people and never been proven false YET. No scientific "Law" is EVER 100% correct.

You, "pharoahmuhammad" are just another example of the ignorance that permeates society because people like yourselves try to argue against a scientific theories using biased arguments with no valid sources or merit. Learn how to reference your sources! You can't just take a collection of supposed "knowledge" you have picked up throughout your life and use it to rant about how you think a scientific theory which has never been proven false is wrong (and of course provide no alternative explanation to boot).

AND I just want to add (to the ignoramous that thinks scientists have never found a fossil of life undergoing evolution in a transitiory stage) that scientists don't need to find fossil evidence of life in a transition phase because a perfect example of gilled animals evolving into animals that can breathe oxygen from the air lives NOW in nothern Queensland, Australia - the lungfish. Lungfish have gills but also have a primitive "lung", which they can stick out of the water and breathe air with. A quick look at the link below will help you understand what an amazing creature, and example of evolution the lungfish is.

Oh, by the way - I am not an atheist, I just don't believe in organized religion. There is a God, trust me.

Answer 3

First, nothing is science is 100% correct. In science, there is ALWAYS the possibility of new evidence modifying an existing law, even though that's rare. Evolution (like Newton's theory of gravity) has such a huge body of evidence behind it that it fully deserves the title of scientific law.

Here's some of that evidence:

Apparently you are unaware that there are in fact flying snakes. That do in fact jump from trees and glide through the air.

Apparently you are unaware that speciation, the process of creating new species, has BEEN OBSERVED not just once but many times.

Apparently you are unaware that natural selection ceases to operate on humans when humans take action -- such as wearing clothing -- that negates its effect.

Apparently you are unaware that natural selection is just one part of the theory of evolution, and that mutation is another part.

Write back after you've read more about evolution than you've read about the Bible. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 4

Firstly you are assuming that animals just lept onto the scene with the DNA they have now. Plants and animals developed from simple designs like RNA, fish and amphibian DNA and the process not only takes millions of years but is also subject to mutation. When fish moved onto land the factors included being able to hold their breath out of water, proto-lungs that drew air from the surface contact that is possible as they are not dissimilar from gills and from mutation. Fins with joints and stronger forearms made it easier to move on land but a mutation could develop a split in the fin that would later turn into fingers and toes, because they were beneficial nad increased movement on land. Your analogies apply to animals that have had billions of years of evolutio nand have developed under very specific paths, of course you cannot create a cat from a dog because all dogs are miles down their evolutionary path and the choices made millions of years prior have stopped them from taking that evolutionary path. If you went back early enough to proto-mammals, early mammals that resembled mice or ferrets then both dogs and cats share ancestors that are distinctly similar, nad would have been able to inter-breed if you go back far enough. You are using modern examples to describe a state that occured at the beginning of life on earth, the more choices made the more avenues are closed off when it comes to evolution. But there is nothing stopping further evolution if you waited millions of years, through distinction of DNA into furhter traits, increased muscle mass for instance is naturally there and is natural selection but mutations account for this, white tigers were originally a mutation that benefited their hunting in winter months and so was passed on.

On your point aobut eskimos, not only is dark skin a natural sunscreen but also retains vitamins D and B, in areas where the vitamins are difficult to come by it would take a long time before the pigment darkened. also rmemeber that eskimos are migrants to their environment, as are all humans not in Africa and so either the select number there do not change as much to their environment from the DNA stock they have to work with, or like I mentioned earlier it is beneficial to them to keep it, even discounitng vitamins large snow covered areas are bright with glare and can produce sunburn.

Answer 5

Yup, believe in evolution and you are not only stupid but going to burn in eternal damnation. On the other hand how smart are you if believe a much edited book of literature when it has been used as proof that

the earth is flat
the whole universe revolves around the earth
white people are gods chosen ones
women are inferior to men and are the original sinners
its okay to kill witches
some people live several hundred years

Yup its clear to me, science is so confused with facts that it should just be ignored (/end sarcasm)

Answer 6

Genetic diversity is different then evolutionary theory.

1st, your premise of using Eskimos in your argument is a poor one so you started on very shaky ground. Eskimos are primarily asians that migrated over the Bering Strait land bridge during the last glacial period so your assumption of fur is flawed in the fact that this race was primarily not native to a polar climate prior to 10000BCE .

Your argument seems to against the influence of environment on genetic diversity. If your argument is that "life" is created by a diety your arguments (in this post lack substance to validate them) What fails challenges in the creationism argument is the earth began in 6006 BC.

I know from Mendel that if I cross polinate different types of plants or breed two different colors of mice I get genetic hybrids. Genetic hybridization is much different then your lame analogies.

Mind you I am no atheist. I am a believer with some level of common sense and geological and biological processes.

Answer 7

Yes, evolution is a theory in the same way the creationism is a theory. If either were fact, there would be no need to discuss the other. So what webpage did you plagiarize this information from?

Answer 8

there is NO fossil data that supports evolution - its JUST a theory. Of the fossils found, there are none that are in transition to another form.

Answer 9

Your parents are probably still trying to prove that you're human! Good luck with that!

Answer 10

Still a better theory then that whole POOF your all there one day Bible crap.